Misc RM 42 Misc reference material
Reference Material - For Information Only!
Over time we have collected a lot of reference material.
We figured it would be better to share with all rather than just delete it.
If you want it, keep it, otherwise just delete it.
Due to the volume it will take more than one mailing.
What to do when they ask for your Social Security Number
By Chris Hibbert, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
Many people are concerned about the number of organizations asking for their Social Security Numbers. They worry about invasions of privacy and the oppressive feeling of being treated as just a number. Unfortunately, I can't offer any hope about the dehumanizing effects of identifying you with your numbers. I can try to help you keep your Social Security Number from being used as a tool in the invasion of your privacy. (Ed. note: Not intended as legal advise.)
Surprisingly, government agencies are reasonably easy to deal with; private organizations are much more troublesome. Federal law restricts the agencies at all levels of government that can demand your number and a fairly complete disclosure is required even if its use is voluntary. There are no comparable Federal laws restricting the uses non-government organizations can make of it, or compelling them to tell you anything about their plans. Some states have recently enacted regulations on collection of SSNs by private entities. With private institutions, your main recourse is refusing to do business with anyone whose terms you don't like. They, in turn, are allowed to refuse to deal with you on those terms.
Short History
Social Security numbers were introduced by the Social Security Act of 1935. They were originally intended to be used only by the social security program, and public assurances were given at the time that use would be strictly limited. In 1943 Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9397 which required federal agencies to use the number when creating new record-keeping systems. In 1961 the IRS began to use it as a taxpayer ID number. The Privacy Act of 1974 required authorization for government agencies to use SSNs in their data bases and required disclosures (detailed below) when government agencies request the number. Agencies which were already using SSN as an identifier before January 1, 1975 were allowed to continue using it. The Tax Reform Act of 1976 gave authority to state or local tax, welfare, driver's license, or motor vehicle registration authorities to use the number in order to establish identities. The Privacy Protection Study Commission of 1977 recommended that the Executive Order be repealed after some agencies referred to it as their authorization to use SSNs. I don't know whether it was repealed, but no one seems to have cited EO 9397 as their authorization recently.
Several states use the SSN as a driver's license number, while others record it on applications and store it in their database. Some states that routinely use it on the license will make up another number if you insist. According to the terms of the Privacy Act, any that have a space for it on the application forms should have a disclosure notice. Many don't, and until someone takes them to court, they aren't likely to change. (Though New York recently agreed to start adding the notice on the basis of a letter written by a reader of this blurb.)
The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a) requires that any federal, state, or local government agency that requests your Social Security Number has to tell you four things:
Whether disclosure of your Social Security Number is required or optional, What law authorizes them to ask for your Social Security Number, How your Social Security Number will be used if you give it to them, and
The consequences of failure to provide an SSN.
In addition, the Act says that only Federal law can make use of the Social Security Number mandatory. So anytime you're dealing with a government institution and you're asked for your Social Security Number, just look for the Privacy Act Statement. If there isn't one, complain and don't give your number. If the statement is present, read it. If it says giving your Social Security Number is voluntary, you'll have to decide for yourself whether to fill in the number.
Private Organizations
The guidelines for dealing with non-governmental institutions are much more tenuous. Most of the time private organizations that request your Social Security Number can get by quite well without your number, and if you can find the right person to negotiate with, they'll willingly admit it. The problem is finding that right person. The person behind the counter is often told no more than "get the customers to fill out the form completely."
Most of the time, you can convince them to use some other number. Usually the simplest way to refuse to give your Social Security Number is simply to leave the appropriate space blank. One of the times when this isn't a strong enough statement of your desire to conceal your number is when dealing with institutions which have direct contact with your employer. Most employers have no policy against revealing your Social Security Number; they apparently believe that it must be an unintentional slip when an employee doesn't provide an SSN to everyone who asks.
Public utilities (gas, electric, phone, etc.) are considered to be private organizations under the laws regulating SSNs. Most of the time they ask for an SSN, and aren't prohibited from asking for it, but they'll usually relent if you insist. Ask to speak to a supervisor, insist that they document a corporate policy requiring it, ask about alternatives, ask why they need it and suggest alternatives.
Lenders and Borrowers (those who send reports to the IRS)
Banks and credit card issuers and various others are required by the IRS to report the SSNs of account holders to whom they pay interest or when they charge interest and report it to the IRS. If you don't tell them your number you will probably either be refused an account or be charged a penalty such as withholding of taxes on your interest. (Hint: Get a non-interest being account.)
Many Banks, Brokerages, and other financial institutions have started implementing automated systems to let you check your balance. All too often, they are using SSNs as the PIN that lets you get access to your personal account information. If your bank does this to you, write them a letter pointing out how common it is for the people with whom you have financial business to know your SSN. Ask them to change your PIN, and if you feel like doing a good deed, ask them to stop using the SSN as a default identifier for their other customers. Some customers will believe that there's some security in it, and be insufficiently protective of their account numbers.
When buying (and possibly refinancing) a house, most banks will now ask for your Social Security Number on the Deed of Trust. This is because the Federal National Mortgage Association recently started requiring it. The fine print in their regulation admits that some consumers won't want to give their number, and allows banks to leave it out when pressed. [It first recommends getting it on the loan note, but then admits that it's already on various other forms that are a required part of the package, so they already know it. The Deed is a public document, so there are good reasons to refuse to put it there, even though all parties to the agreement already have access to your number.]
Insurers, Hospitals, Doctors
No laws require medical service providers to use your Social Security Number as an ID number (except for Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) They often use it because it's convenient or because your employer uses it to identify employees to its groups health plan. In the latter case, you have to get your employer to change their policies. Often, the people who work in personnel assume that the employer or insurance company requires use of the SSN when that's not really the case. When a previous employer asked for my SSN for an insurance form, I asked them to try to find out if they had to use it. After a week they reported that the insurance company had gone along with my request and told me what number to use. Blood banks also ask for the number but are willing to do without if pressed on the issue. After I asked politely and persistently, the blood bank I go to agreed that they didn't have any use for the number. They've now expunged my SSN from their database, and they seem to have taught their receptionists not to request the number.
Most insurance companies share access to old claims through the Medical Information Bureau. If your insurance company uses your SSN, other insurance companies will have a much easier time finding out about your medical history. You can get a copy of the file which MIB keeps on you by writing to Medical Information Bureau, P.O. Box 105, Essex Station, Boston, MA 02112. Their phone number is (617) 426-3660.
If an insurance agent asks for your Social Security Number in order to "check your credit", point out that the contract is invalid if your check bounces or your payment is late. They don't need to know what your credit is like, just whether you've paid them.
Children
The Family Support Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 1305, 607, and 602) apparently requires states to require parents to give their Social Security Numbers in order to get a birth certificate issued for a newborn. The law allows the requirement to be waived for "good cause", but there's no indication of what may qualify.
The IRS requires taxpayers to report SSNs for dependents over one year of age, but the requirement can be avoided if you're prepared to document the existence of the child by other means if challenged. The law on this can be found at 26 U.S.C. 6109.
Universities and Colleges
Universities that accept federal funds are subject to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (the "Buckley Amendment"), which prohibits them from giving out personal information on students without permission. There is an exception for directory information, which is limited to names, addresses, and phone numbers, and another exception for release of information to the parents of minors. There is no exception for Social Security Numbers, so covered Universities aren't allowed to reveal students' numbers without their permission. In addition, state universities are bound by the requirements of the Privacy Act, which requires them to provide the disclosures mentioned above. If they make uses of the SSN which aren't covered by the disclosure they are in violation.
Why SSNs are a bad choice for UIDs in data bases Database designers continue to introduce the Social Security Number as the key when putting together a new database or when re-organizing an old one. Some of the qualities that are (often) useful in a key and that people think they are getting from the SSN are Uniqueness, Universality, Security, and Identification. When designing a database, it is instructive to consider which of these qualities are actually important in your application; many designers assume unwisely that they are all useful for every application, when in fact each is occasionally a drawback. The SSN provides none of them, so designs predicated on the assumption that it does provide them will fail in a variety of ways.
Uniqueness
Many people assume that Social Security Numbers are unique. They were intended by the Social Security Administration to be unique, but they didn't take sufficient precautions to ensure that it would be so. There have been several instances when two different SSA offices issued the same number to different people. They have also given a previously issued number to someone with the same name as the original recipient, thinking it was the same person asking again. There are a few numbers that were used by thousands of people because they were on sample cards shipped in wallets by their manufacturers. (One is given below.)
The passage of the Immigration reform law in 1986 caused an increase in the duplicate use of SSNs. Since the SSN is now required for employment, illegal immigrants must find a valid name/SSN pair in order to fool the INS, and IRS long enough to collect a paycheck. Using the SSN when you can't cross-check your database with the SSA means you can count on getting some false numbers mixed in with the good ones.
Universality
Not everyone has a Social Security Number. Foreigners are the primary exception, but many children don't get SSNs until they're in school. They were only designed to be able to cover people who were eligible for Social Security.
Identification
Few people ever ask to see an SSN card; they believe whatever you say. The ability to recite the number provides little evidence that you're associated with the number in anyone else's database.
Security
The card is not at all forgery-resistant, even if anyone did ever ask for it. The numbers don't have any redundancy (no check- digits) so any 9-digit number in the range of numbers that have been issued is a valid number. It's relatively easy to copy the number incorrectly, and there's no way to tell that you've done so.
In most cases, there is no cross-checking that a number is valid. Credit card and checking account numbers are checked against a database almost every time they are used. If you write down someone's phone number incorrectly, you find out the first time you try to use it.
Why you should resist requests for your SSN
When you give out your number, you are providing access to information about yourself. You're providing access to information about you that you don't know about. That you don't have the ability or the legal right to correct or rebut. You provide access to information that is irrelevant to most transactions but that will occasionally trigger prejudice. Worst of all, since you provided the key, (and did so "voluntarily") all the info discovered under your number will be presumed to be true, about you, and relevant.
A major problem with the use of SSNs as identifiers is that it makes it hard to control access to personal information. Even assuming you want someone to be able to find out some things about you, there's no reason to believe that you want to make all records concerning yourself available. When multiple record systems are all keyed by the same identifier, and all are intended to be easily accessible to some users, it becomes difficult to allow someone access to some of the information about a person while restricting them to specific topics.
Unfortunately, far too many organizations assume that anyone who presents your SSN must be you. When more than one person uses the same number, it clouds up the records. If someone intended to hide their activities, it's likely that it'll look bad on whichever record it shows up on. When it happens accidentally, it can be unexpected, embarrassing, or worse. How do you prove that you weren't the one using your number when the record was made?
What you can do to protect your number
If despite your having written "refused" in the box for Social Security Number, it still shows up on the forms someone sends back to you (or worse, on the ID card they issue), your recourse is to write letters or make phone calls. Start politely, explaining your position and expecting them to understand and cooperate. If that doesn't work, there are several more things to try:
Talk to people higher up in the organization. This often works simply because the organization has a standard way of dealing with requests not to use the SSN, and the first person you deal with just hasn't been around long enough to know what it is.
Enlist the aid of your employer. You have to decide whether talking to someone in personnel, and possibly trying to change corporate policy is going to get back to your supervisor and affect your job.
Threaten to complain to a consumer affairs bureau. Most newspapers can get a quick response. Ask for their "Action Line" or equivalent. If you're dealing with a local government agency, look in the state or local government section of the phone book under "consumer affairs." If it's a federal agency, your Member of Congress may be able to help.
Insist that they document a corporate policy requiring the number. When someone can't find a written policy or doesn't want to push hard enough to get it, they'll often realize that they don't know what the policy is, and they've just been following tradition.
Ask what they need it for and suggest alternatives. If you're talking to someone who has some independence, and they'd like to help, they will sometimes admit that they know the reason the company wants it, and you can satisfy that requirement a different way.
Tell them you'll take your business elsewhere (and follow through if they don't cooperate.)
If it's a case where you've gotten service already, but someone insists that you have to provide your number in order to have a continuing relationship, you can choose to ignore the request in hopes that they'll forget or find another solution before you get tired of the interruption.
*** Adopt an active policy of not giving out your SSN unless you are convinced it is required or is to your benefit. Make people show you why it is needed.
*** Never print your Social Security number on your checks, business cards, address labels or other identifying information. Do not carry your SSN card in your wallet, or other cards containing the SSN. Your wallet could be lost or stolen. Attempt to resist merchants' requests to write your SSN onto your checks. Explain how you could become a victim of fraud if someone were to use your SSN and account number to gain access to your bank or credit accounts, or to open new accounts in your name.
If someone absolutely insists on getting your Social Security Number, you may want to give a fake number. There is no legal penalty as long as you're not doing it to get something from a government agency or to commit fraud. There are a few good choices for "anonymous" numbers. Making one up at random is a bad idea, as it may coincide with someone's real number and cause them some amount of grief. It's better to use a number like "078-05-1120", which was printed on "sample" cards inserted in thousands of new wallets sold in the 40's and 50's. It's been used so widely that both the IRS and SSA recognize it immediately as bogus, while most clerks haven't heard of it.
There are several prefixes that have never been assigned, and which therefore don't conflict with anyone's real number. They include the following patterns:
Any field all zeroes (no field of zeroes is ever assigned)
First digit "8" (no area numbers in the 800 series have been assigned)
First two digits 73-79 (no area numbers in the 700 series have been assigned except 700-729 which were assigned to railroad workers until 1964)
Giving a number with one of these patterns rather than your own number isn't very useful if there's anything serious at stake since they're likely to be noticed. Numbers beginning with 772 have never been assigned to individuals, but some have been assigned to organizations and for other special purposes. The Social Security Administration recommends that people showing Social Security cards in advertisements use numbers in the range 987-65-4320 through 987-65-4329.
If you're designing a database, and want to use numbers other than Social Security Numbers, you'd be better off generating numbers that are shorter than 9 digits, so they won't be confused with SSNs. If you have an existing database using SSNs, and want to allow people to use a different identifier, it's better to generate longer or shorter numbers or ones with letters included rather than depending on these unused patterns.
The Social Security Administration recommends that you request a copy of your file from them every few years to make sure that your records are correct (your income and "contributions" are being recorded for you, and no one else's are.) As a result of a recent court case, the SSA has agreed to accept corrections of errors when there isn't any contradictory evidence, SSA has records for the year before or after the error, and the claimed earnings are consistent with earlier and later wages. (San Jose Mercury News, 5/14, 1992 page 6-A) Call the Social Security Administration at (800) 772-1213 and ask for Form 7004, (Request for Earnings and Benefit Estimate Statement.)
U.S. Passports
The application for US Passports (DSP-11 12/87) requests a Social Security Number, but gives no Privacy Act notice. There is a reference to "Federal Tax Law" and a misquotation of Section 6039E of the 1986 IRC, claiming that the section requires that you provide your name, mailing address, date of birth, and Social Security Number. The referenced section only requires TIN (SSN), and it requires that it be sent to the IRS and not to the Passport office. It appears that when you apply for a passport, you can refuse to reveal your Social Security Number to the passport office, and instead mail a notice to the IRS, giving only your Social Security Number (other identifying info optional) and notifying them that you are applying for a passport. [I can provide copies of the letter that was used successfully by one contributor. I'd be interested in hearing how the State department and the Post Office (which is willing to process the forms for you) react.]
Results from Some Recent Legal Cases (3/24/93) CPSR joined two legal cases in 1992 which concerned Social Security Numbers and privacy. One of them challenged the IRS practice of printing Social Security Numbers on mailing labels when they send out tax forms and related correspondence. The other challenged Virginia's requirement of a Social Security Number in order to register to vote.
Dr. Peter Zilahy Ingerman filed suit against the IRS in Federal District Court in 1991, and CPSR filed a friend of the court brief in August 1991. The case was decided in favor of the IRS.
The Virginia case was filed by a resident of the state who refused to supply a Social Security Number when registering to vote. When the registrar refused to accept his registration, he filed suit. He is also challenging the state of Virginia on two other bases: the registration form lacked a Privacy Act notice, and the voter lists the state publishes include Social Security Numbers. The Federal court of appeals ruled that the state of Virginia may not allow the disclosure of Social Security numbers as a condition of registering to vote. The court said that the Virginia requirement places an "intolerable burden" on the right to vote. The case is officially referred to as Greidinger v. Davis, No. 92-1571, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, March 22, 1993.
If you have suggestions for improving this document please send them to me at:
Chris Hibbert hibbert@memex.com or Memex, Inc. 550 California Ave, Suite 210 Palo Alto, CA 94306
This posting is available via anonymous ftp from rtfm.mit.edu in the file /pub/usenet/news.answers/ssn-privacy. It's also available from mail-server@pitmanager.mit.edu by sending a mail message containing the line "send usenet/news.answers/ssn- privacy" (without the quote marks) as the sole contents of the body. Send a message containing "help" to get general information about the mail server.
---EXAMPLE---
The herein serves as constructive Notice that John Henry Doe being a living man, not a corporation or becoming one or an officer or surity of one, as agent of the named DEBTOR individual, [UCC] legal entity juristic person or organization, the living man gives right Notice of His intent of operating under the God of nature, instead of the god of the State; and gives apt Notice of His intent of NOT being a surety for the use of [private issue] Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) and the alleged debt of the public; and gives proper and suitable Notice that the assigned Social Security Administration Account Number (a/k/a "SSN") 078-05-1120 is that of the DEBTOR — not the living man; and further
The living man, sui juris, one who is not a transferee, federal employee, or an elected official, does not authorize, consent or accept the use of the Social Security Number (SSN) as may be assigned to the living man's trust account within the public account with and administered by the Social Security Administration (SSA) for any purpose other than direct dealings with the Social Security Administration as to living man's estate as may be in its possession, which is foreign to the US Government; further
Disclosure of Social Security Number (SSN)
Act Dec. 31, 1974, P. L. 93-579, Section 7, 88 Stat. 1909, provided:
"(a)(1) It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny to any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual's refusal to disclose his social security account number.
"(2) the provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply with respect to - any disclosure which is required by Federal statute, or the disclosure of a social security number to any Federal, State, or local agency maintaining a system of records in existence and operating before January 1, 1975, if such disclosure was required under statute or regulation adopted prior to such date to verify the identity of an individual.
"(b) Any Federal, State, or local government agency which requests an individual to disclose his social security account number shall inform that individual whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory or other authority such number is solicited, and what uses will be made of it."
Respectfully submitted — by Order of the DEBTOR, JOHN HENRY DOE
The living man is also Authorized Agent for DEBTOR, and proceeds without prejudice, without waiving any rights, remedy, defences statutory or procedural.
---EXAMPLE--- NOT LEGAL ADVICE ---
One is cautioned against doing anything without comprehending what it is that they are doing.
(Your name) (Your address)
To: (Employer) Address Certified Mail #
NOTICE Re: DEMAND FOR FULL PAYMENT OF WAGES AND
DEMAND EMPLOYER CEASE AND DESIST WITHHOLDING OF WAGES UNDER THE GUISE, PRETEXT, SHAM AND SUBTERFUGE OF WITHHOLDING TAXES FROM EMPLOYEE WHO IS NOT SUBJECT TO INCOME OR OTHER REVENUE TAXES, AND PAYMENT OF ALL MONEYS UNLAWFULLY WITHHELD.
Dear Sirs:
Please take notice that I, (your name), hereby demand full payment of my contracted wages and demand that you cease and desist withholding any of my wages under the guise, pretext, sham and subterfuge of withholding taxes.
You know full well that my job description does not involve any revenue taxable activity, event or incident, and you know that, as your employee, I have not incurred any tax liability, and therefore I am not subject to any revenue tax or tax withholding.
You know full well that the free exercise and enjoyment of the God-given and constitutionally secured right to lawfully acquire property or compensatory income, by lawfully contracting one's own labor in innocent and harmless activities, for lawful compensation, cannot be (and therefore has not been) taxed for revenue purposes.
You know that a constitutionally secured right is the antithesis of and must never be confused with revenue taxable activities such as doing business in a corporate capacity or the pursuing of certain occupations for profit or gain such as the practice of law.
You know full well that the Internal Revenue Code does not concern any person who is not involved in any revenue taxable activity, and therefore the code makes absolutely no reference and has no application of any kind whatsoever to anyone, except only those persons who are subject to revenue taxation as a result of their revenue taxable activities.
You know that the United States courts have ruled:
"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 Congress does not assume to deal and they are neither of the SUBJECT nor of the OBJECT of the revenue laws." Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236, at 238. (1922); Economy Plumbing and Heating v. U.S., 470 F. 2d 585, at 589. (1972) (Emphasis added)
You know that the legal term "taxpayer" is very narrowly defined in the Internal Revenue Code at sections 1313(b) and 7701(a)(14). (b) Notwithstanding section 770 1 (a)(I 4), the term "taxpayer" means any person subject to a tax under the applicable revenue law. 26 IRC 1313(b) and,
(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent hereof --
(14) Taxpayer. - The term "taxpayer" means any person subject to any internal revenue tax. 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(14)
You know that the term "taxpayer" clearly applies only to those persons who are subject to a tax under the applicable revenue law.
You know that the "income tax" is an indirect, and not a direct, tax on incomes. You know, of course, that the U. S. Constitution makes a clear distinction between direct taxes and indirect taxes.
"In the matter of taxation, the Constitution recognizes the two great classes of direct and indirect taxes, and lays down two rules by which their imposition must be governed, namely: The rule of apportionment as to direct taxes, and the rule of uniformity as to duties, imposts and excises." Pollock v Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429, at 557j (I 895); and Brushaber v Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, at 13. (1916)
You know, of course, that the Sixteenth Amendment was placed in our U.S. Constitution in 1913. The Sixteenth Amendment states:
"The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
You know that the only class of tax that can be laid on incomes without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration, is an indirect tax. You know that it is the "without apportionment" language that confines an "income tax" to the class of indirect taxes.
You know, of course, that in the cases of Brushaber v Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U. S. 1, and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, the U. S. Supreme Court (1916) ruled the Sixteenth Amendment and the income tax passed under it are constitutional because they only concern indirect taxes, and because the Amendment does not authorize the direct taxation of incomes or even confer any new power of taxation, nor does it in any way alter, change, enlarge or affect the taxing power originally conferred upon Congress by Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution.
"(T)he contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax ... is wholly without foundation..." Brushaber v Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U. S. 1, at 13. (1916)
"(T)he Sixteenth Amendment conferred NO NEW POWER of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress FROM THE BEGINNING from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged..." Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 2440 U. S. 103, at page 112. (1916)
"(T)he conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but on the contrary recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such..." Brushaber, supra, at pages 16-17.
You know that the income tax, being in its nature an excise tax, is not actually on income as property, but on revenue taxable events, incidents or activities, from which the income is merely used for measuring the tax. Hence, the name "income tax". It is according to the income, and not upon the income itself. The class of taxes which are indirect include duties, imposts and excises, and such taxes are never upon any kind of property, but only upon revenue taxable activities, which include, but not limited to, the exercise of certain procured privileges, such as doing of business in a corporate capacity, where the measure of the amount of tax is typically income, sales, inventory, etc.
You know that in 1916, when the U. S. Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of the Sixteenth Amendment and the nature of an income tax, the court relied on the earlier ruling it had made in 1911 in the case of Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U. S. 107. The U. S. Supreme Court held in Flint that a tax measured by the income of corporations or insurance companies is not a tax directly on income as property, but an indirect, or excise, tax upon the business activity or corporations which is a lawful subject or taxation. The U. S. Supreme Court said:
"Within the category of indirect taxation, as we shall have further occasion to show, is embraced a tax upon business done in a corporate capacity..." Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U. S. 107, at 150 (1911) and,
"We must remember, too, that the revenues of the United States must be obtained in the same territory, from the same people, and excise taxes must be collected from the same activities, as are also reached by the States in order to support their local government." Flint, supra, at 154. and,
"Conceding the power of Congress to tax the business activities of private corporations ... the tax must be measured by some standard..." Flint, supra, at 165 and,
"It is therefore well settled by the decisions of this court that when the sovereign authority has exercised the right to tax a legitimate subject of taxation as an exercise of a franchise or privilege, it is no objection that the measure or taxation is found in the income..." Flint, supra, at 165
You know very well that the free exercise of a constitutionally secured right is not a legitimate subject of taxation. You know that the U. S. Supreme Court ruled: "A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution." Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U. S. 105, at II 3. (1943)
You know that the federal government and the state governments cannot, and therefore have not, taxed the free exercise of constitutionally secured rights. You know that one who lawfully contracts his own labor to engage in innocent and harmless activities in exchange for lawful compensation cannot be taxed for revenue purposes, and therefore is not a "taxpayer" as defined by statute, and is therefore a NONTAXPAYER and is entitled to ALL the fruits of his labor.
"The right to labor and to its protection from unlawful interference is a constitutional as well as a common-law right. Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own industry." 48 Am Jur 2d, Section 2, page 80.
You know that an indirect tax is never a tax upon the tangible fruit, but rather upon the taxable event or activity.
"A tax laid upon the happening of an event, as distinguished from its tangible fruits, is an indirect tax..." Tyler v. U.S., 281 U.S. 497, at 502. (1930)
Knowing that the so-called income tax is an indirect tax and in its nature an excise, you know that an excise tax cannot be (and therefore has not been) imposed upon any individual or upon an individuals free exercise of a natural right secured by the U.S. Constitution.
"The individual unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individuals' rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed." Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P. 813, at 819. (1930)
You also know that in the landmark cases of Stewart Machine Co. v. Davis, 361 U. S. 548, (1937), and Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, (1937), the Supreme Court ruled that the Social Security taxes are also indirect taxes and that the Social Security Act lays a "special income tax upon employees". In Helvering v. Davis the court described title VIII of the Social Security Act as follows:
"Title VIII, as we have said, lays two different types of tax, an 'income tax on employees,' and 'excise tax on employers.' The income tax on employees is measured by wages paid during the calendar year. para 801. The excise tax on the employer is to be paid 'with respect to having individuals in his employ,' and, like the tax on employees, is measured by wages. para 804 ... The two taxes are at the same rate. para 801, 804 ... The proceeds of both taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way. para 807(a)." Helvering v. Davis, 301 U. S. 619 at 635
You know full well that the Internal Revenue Code sections 3102(a) and 3402(a), which provide:
The tax imposed by section 3101 shall be collected by the employer of the taxpayer, by deducting the amount of the tax from the wages as and when paid. 26 U.S.C. 3102(a) (In Part),
and,
Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax..." 26 U. S. C. 3402(a)(1) (In part), refer only to the wages of persons (employees who are "taxpayer(s)", that is, those who are subject to a tax under the applicable revenue laws as a result of their revenue taxable activities.
You know full well that the legal criterion or standard by which your employees are to be determined as to whether or not they are employed in a revenue taxable activity has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with how much wages or money they earn, but instead, is determined exclusively by the factual description and precise nature of their employment in terms of what they actually do or did and whether or not it involves any kind of activity which cannot be pursued as a matter of constitutional right. A revenue tax liability is not incurred by the free exercise of a constitutionally guaranteed right, and therefore unlimited income derived from such activity is not taxable for revenue purposes. You know full well that a revenue tax has nothing whatsoever to do with the amount of wages earned by the free exercise of constitutionally guaranteed rights.
You know full well that one incurs a tax liability in the same way any other kind of liability is incurred, that is, by doing something that affects the rights of others, or of the public, and as a result of which a duty arises to answer for damages. One answers according to the same duty which a witness has before a grand jury to answer, upon being granted immunity from criminal prosecution. (See Garner v. U. S. 424 U. S. 648, at 652.) In other words, you will not be criminally prosecuted for being involved in a revenue taxable activity, provided, you truthfully and timely report, or make a return, regarding your income from that activity, and computing the tax thereon. The amount of income which you have procured from that taxable activity is not directly taxable as such, but it is confiscable or seizable as a product of that taxable activity, and under the revenue law's taxing schedules or tables it is the basis for measuring or computing the amount of tax on such activities.
You also know that the legal status of your employees who are not subject to income taxation, which includes the Social Security tax, does not involve the declaring of exemptions or an exempt status on a W-4 form, since that form can only be legally used by those who are subject to the tax because of their revenue taxable activities, and who are legally defined in the Internal Revenue Code as "taxpayers(s)", and yet you willfully and corruptly exerted undue influence and pressure upon your employees, who are not subject to revenue taxation, to fill our and sign W-4 forms and to provide you with Social Security numbers.
You know that you cannot, as a condition of employment, compel or require an employee, especially one who is not employed in a revenue taxable activity, to submit a W-4 form. you know that a W-4 form, when signed by anyone who is not engaged in a revenue taxable activity, is NULL and VOID.
You also know that the law, namely Treasury Regulation 31.3402(f)(2)- I (g)(2) which has full force and effect of law, absolutely forbids an employer from sending any W-4 form to the Internal Revenue Service if such form has been signed by an individual who is not subject to any revenue tax.
"31.3402(f)(2)-(g)(2) Exception. A copy of the certificate shall not be submitted under paragraph (g)(1)(H) of this section if the employer reasonably expects, at the time the certificate is received, that the employee's wages (under chapter 24 of the Code) from that employer shall not then usually exceed $200 per week. Treasury Regulation 31.3402(f)(2)-I(g)(2) (In part)
You know full well that Chapter 24 of the Internal Revenue Code applies only to those who are engaged in revenue taxable activities. You know full well that you have no reason to expect me to earn $200 per week from revenue taxable activities when I was not even hired to engage in any revenue taxable activity. You know full well that you cannot withhold a tax from one who is not subject to the tax. Only a "taxpayer" can have taxes withheld. The withholding of funds under the guise, pretext, sham and subterfuge of collecting a tax is criminal conversion, extortion, and abuse of corporate privilege, and is depriving that individual of property without due process of law.
Knowing full well that the state and federal taxing agencies rely and depend upon employers, such as yourself, to know which, if any, of their employees are employed in revenue taxable activities and to truthfully identify and report the names of such employees, if any, to said taxing agencies for processing under the appropriate revenue laws, you have willfully and corruptly submitted my name as a misrepresentation of tax status to the Internal Revenue Service as if I was employed in a revenue taxable activity and therefore subject to revenue taxation and tax withholding, which you knew and know to be false, regarding the true nature of my employment by you, and which you knew and know is not of a revenue taxable nature. You have at all times known that I would not, as a result of my employment, incur any revenue tax liability or become subject to any tax under any revenue law.
You know that by submitting to the federal and state collecting agencies the W-4 forms and Social Security numbers or your employees who are not subject to income taxation, you have willfully and corruptly made factual misrepresentation to said agencies, all in the furtherance of the unlawful scheme of procuring from said agencies fictitiously contrived and legally void tax withholding "orders" as your false color and pretense of legal authority for unlawfully depriving said employees of their full contracted wages.
It is assumed, as a matter of law, that you, acting in a fiduciary capacity, knew, and know, the above stated facts.
Despite your knowledge of the foregoing facts you, nevertheless, have corruptly and falsely represented to the federal and state taxing agencies that I am and was employed by you in a revenue taxable activity, and thereby incurred a revenue tax liability, and became subject to the income tax. As a direct and proximate result of said misrepresentations, you willfully, corruptly and unlawfully procured false orders and instructions from said agencies to unlawfully withhold my wages as if I were employed in a revenue taxable activity and as if my job involved some revenue taxable event or incident and, as if I was therefore subject to a tax under a revenue law.
The fact that I supplied you with a Social Security number and the fact that I signed a W-4 form does not indemnify you from liability. The furnishing of numbers or the signing of forms does not change a non-taxable activity into a taxable activity. It is assumed, as a matter of law, that you know which, if any, of your employees are employed to engage in revenue taxable activities.
By your unlawful acts, you have violated our contract and you have violated my constitutional rights. I therefore demand of you the following:
1. Cease and desist withholding of wages under the sham, guise, pretext and subterfuge of withholding taxes, and
2. Make immediate payment to me of all monies which you have unlawfully withheld from me, and
3. Pay to me an additional and reasonable amount of money, which will be determined either by negotiation between us or by adjudication in a court, to compensate me for damages which you have done which are in the nature of exemplary, punitive, and other damages.
Sincerely,
Because of this lack of authority, the IRS has attempted to buffalo you into placing a lien on my property. They have not, as you must note, placed the correct document, a FEDERAL TAX LIEN in your hands.
I am attaching a Memorandum of Law concerning IRS lien and levy authority. I suggest that you read it very carefully, and if necessary consult with the your Attorney to verify its accuracy and validity under law in order to avoid possible civil action against you and your office for violation of my rights.
Further, be informed that the use of taxpayers funds (use of County Attorney) to defend yourself against violations of law in this case, would in and of itself be a violation of law, since you have no valid law to support your actions in filing the "Notice".
IF AFTER RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER YOU DO IN FACT FILE AND RECORD AN UNLAWFUL "NOTICE OF LIEN" WITHOUT DEMANDING AND OBTAINING AN "AT LAW" ARTICLE III COURT AUTHORIZED "FEDERAL TAX LIEN" YOU MAY BE FACING A CIVIL ACTION AND POSSIBLE CRIMINAL CHARGES WHICH MAY BE FILED AGAINST YOU, YOUR EMPLOYER (THE COUNTY), AND YOUR CORPORATE STATE BOSSES! AN UNLAWFUL "NOTICE OF LIEN" IF IT WERE FILED AN RECORDED IN YOUR COUNTY COURTHOUSE WOULD PRECLUDE MY ABILITY TO SELL MY "PROPERTY", WOULD PLACE A "CLOUD" UPON MY NAME, REPUTATION AND PROPERTY, WOULD DAMAGE ME IN THE EYES OF MY CREDITORS WOULD EFFECT MY ABILITY TO OBTAIN FUTURE CREDIT, ETC.
The attached copies of my Declaration of Allegiance, Revocation of Power of Attorney and Declaration of Sovereignty, is imposed upon you to clarify the law, rectify my past ignorance, and to set forth my position in this matter.
If it is your position that you have authority to file a "Notice" of lien as a Federal Tax Lien, then I demand that within 7 days of the date of your receipt of this letter, you provide me with the following;
1. The lineage of Constitutional Common Law authority from the people of this republic, which gave you or your office that power.
2. A copy of the "Federal Tax Lien' and the court order authorizing it. If a "notice" of federal tax lien has already been filed, and you do not provide the authority demanded above, then I demand that the "Notice" be removed or expunged from your records immediately.
Your failure to remove or expunge could expose you to criminal prosecution as a principal or an accessory under the following state criminal statutes;
1. Principal or accessory to unlawful acts to obtain interest and possessory right in real property by false pretenses 'including misrepresentation, deceit, fraud, menace and duress which has affected the right title and interest in real property belonging to the undersigned.
2. Accessory to the unlawful offering of false instrument to be filed.
3. Accessory to the unlawful making and delivering of instrument containing knowing false statements.
4. Principal and or accessory to the unlawful making of false entries in books of records.
5. Accessory to the execution and transmission of fraudulent documents designed to defraud, deceive, menace, threaten, coerce and intimidate the Plaintiff/Demandant, his and present employers, State and county officials, prospective property buyers, lending and credit reporting institutions and the general public.
I hereby make explicit reservations of all my rights under all forms of law.
Date Signature
Disclaimer: We are just people that get together and exchange information.
We are not a group or organization.
We are not a company or corporation or association.
We sell nothing and we charge nothing.