Presumption of federal income - how it begins
Our experience shows the Federal Income Tax to be an excise on federal things, including private credit of the Federal Reserve, and not a tax on income, or receipts in general. But where does the presumption of federal income come from? where does it begin?
I'm pleased to present a real-world example of such a beginning. It's found in the request for a Form W-9:
http://jesse2012.com/requestW9.jpg
And it's on the Form W-9 that one certifies: "3. I am a U.S. citizen or other U.S. person"
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Form-W-9,-Req...-Certification
I have also noticed that every bank signature card/agreement contains the same Form W-9 language:
http://jesse2012.com/signcard.jpg
Perhaps this hierarchy of best work scenarios for others is of help?
NO LEGAL ADVICE IS INTENDED NOR IMPLIED. ALL OF MY WRITING HERE SHOULD BE DEEMED SOLELY AS OPINION AND PONDERING:
I've read that independent contract work can be done with no SSN. Anyone have links to confirm this? Are there any potential IRS legal term trappings of using the phrase "independent contractor" like the jurisdiction implications of "employee" usage hold? Perhaps it's best to draw your own "agreement" using terms like "private worker" or "private agreement"? I wonder if an agreeable business owner to such a request would face any heat from agency pressure him/her for not being "allowed" to do so (do such state/federal rules block such procedures?).
Seems for tax purposes, the best hierarchy of work conditions IF YOU MUST WORK FOR SOMEONE ELSE are as follows:
BEST - Draw up a private contract with an individual or business declaring in your paperwork for proper record forming that ALL transactions between both parties (or at least your payments) are demanded and Redeemed in Lawful Money pursuant to Title 12 U.S.C. ยง411, and then your work is paid in cash for you to redeem as you wish. (The less signatures on checks/banking the better).
SECOND - Same as above, but with some official "independent contractor" agreement that may apply. You are still paid the same way (no checks nor banking endorsements of lawful money redemption yet for easier record keeping). The one who pays you will send in a 1099 to the IRS and you will get info reporting reflecting this in the mail. Providing no other info returns need rebutting (ie, you didn't work for a employee/W-2 that tax year), you have a choice to NOT file a tax return at all (see other threads about reporting requirements if solely paid in lawful money or correcting erroneous 1040 info returns), or file by correcting the erroreous presumption. Both options have risks- the first is an IRS later assumption (by not correcting) that you failed to file. That is then handled by new paperwork and record forming. The latter choice might enter you into the ring that would have otherwised possibly gone unnoticed. Still, your evidence record should prevail.
Also see threads about adding TDC verbiage (that you gave your SSN 'under duress') if made to sign any forms.
THIRD - Variation of one of the first two scenarios, only different in being that you are paid by check, or direct deposit. IF your bank signature card was set up with your redemption verbiage, your evidence record should be good. If not, your checks will need to have the non-endorsement special deposit restrictions, but your direct deposit, if not restricted in endorsement, does constitute a taxable activity (perhaps, even in a non-interest bearing account).
WORST - Being a full wage slave W-2 employee. You still can redeem lawful money, but the presumptions and nexuses on you are far more to refute. The paperwork for "employees" has many traps. your independant contractor activity holds much less presumption.
One other category that may even be higher than "BEST" is just working for cash with no contracts, like Mexican workers outside Home Depots often do. Usually, your ceiling of payment is much lower in the underground sector. I AM curious to anyone's ideas on what laws/statutes defines an activity as what is commonly known as "under the table" and labeled as illegal? Is it that said Mexicans are not under jurisdiction vs say a US citizen doing the same thing? Perhaps "Under the Table" is just a presumption of not having proper record forming of redemption?
If someone is smart/kind/agreeable enough to work paying you in such a way, has anyone heard of a scenario where one filed a return, rebutting erroneous 1099's through lawful redemption evidence, where it came back as heat on the one who pays you? I'd imagine such an agreeable man/woman would be like-minded to honor your "unusual" request, and both parties may become friends. This would be a tricky situation to enter a tax conflict getting in the way of your work friendship and you don't want to just walk away and find a new place to work.
I welcome all feedback.
