Click on the Image above
Click on the imahe above
SSN Not Required
"Rare is the case that an employer actually needs an SSN. Indeed the Social Security Administration admits the numbers are actually their property and further that “no one needs an SSN to work in the United States.”
This latter fact isn't widely known, but NOT knowing and demanding an SSN where no authority to demand exists could get the employee demanding same, and his employer, involved in a civil action. Our recommendation is frankly to not push the SSN issue with employees. If an employee provides an SSN even on taxation forms it should only be done voluntarily and with NO adverse actions taken in case he refuses.
Form I-9: To our knowledge the only spot that asks for an actual SSN (and not an implied TIN) is on form I-9. However nothing in the law actually states the employee must provide the number. Because primarily government forms are intended for government employees, the majority of "spots for information" are considered voluntary when used by the general population NOT engaged in federal employment.
A twist: Indeed, the restrictions of public law regarding I-9 disclosures can actually RESTRICT the employer from using that number on ANY other form. In other words, do not assume you have the employee's permission to use that number on any other form or in any other way simply be virtue of its disclosure on Form I-9. You could possibly be in violation of the laws behind Form I-9!
Form W-4, Form W-2, Form W-3 and Form W-9:
Let's examine W-4 first. The title of the form identifies it as an "allowance" certificate. Its only purpose is as a permission slip to ALLOW the non-governmental employer to withhold, (take) some money from the employee's compensation on behalf of government. If you think that ALLOWANCE implies a voluntary-act, you are correct! If the form is voluntary for those outside governmental employment, then what of its content including the spot for a number? We repeat: The submission of a W-4 form or any other alternative AND ITS CONTENTS is considered a voluntary act!
Common sense will dictate that one cannot make demands on behalf of government for:
(1) a form signed under oath, with:
(2) a severe penalty of perjury jurat for non truth when:
(3) someone is simply exchanging labor for compensation and when:
(4) the person demanding is not an authorized withholding agent of government.
Hint: Were you given a badge or written delegation of authority?
BEWARE: The IRS has consistently confused these two definitions especially in their publications and forms. Unfortunately-- as employers on our distribution list have identified--the IRS does not come to the aid of employers relying on IRS publications; the IRS is under the Executive Branch of government and that branch does NOT make law.
Thus, non-governmental employers make a BIG mistake if they automatically convert or assume one number for the other without the expressed permission of the employee. It is better to err on the side of safety and to simply refuse to "do the work of government”: In a government-declared "system of voluntary compliance by the making of a return", the non-governmental employer is without authority to create a "taxpayer": that responsibility is left to another. Our recommendation is that you as an employer should NOT attempt to "create taxpayers" from non-governmental employees.
REMEMBER: NON-GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYERS CAN ONLY REQUEST AND NOT DEMAND!
Remember that the SSN is not "owned" by the employee and further your "need" is only to satisfy his benefit if he chooses to participate in government Social Security insurance and the government withholding program. Thus, if an employee refuses to include an SSN on any government form, that right is his own. These forms are creations of government and their existence and content cannot be made mandatory outside those in government employment.
Further, you need not inquire of his reasons. His reasons might range from religious "mark" aspects to simply never applying for an SSN or to not wanting to be forced to make an oath under penalty. And you as an employer have NOTHING to fear from not including an SSN on any government form you submit to government.
The fine for EACH employee is $50 and this can be waived by simply including this statement on the "transmittal document" you send with Form W-2 and W-3: "I requested an SSN [or Form W4]. This non-federal employee did not provide the number [or Form W4]. To my knowledge he is not a federal employee or government "individual" nor does he engage in federal (26 USC) "trade or business".
No law compels a work eligible man or woman to submit a form W-4 or W-9 (or their equivalent), nor disclose an SSN as a condition of being hired or keeping one's job.
With the exception of an order from a court of competent jurisdiction issued by a duly qualified judge, no amounts can be lawfully taken from one's pay (for taxes, fees or other charges) without the worker's explicit, knowing, voluntary, written consent.
Section 7 of Public Law 93-579 provides that:
(a)(1) It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual’s refusal to disclose Social Security account number.
There is no law requiring you to obtain or use the Social Security Number. The Social Security System is a voluntary System. The Social Security Act does not require a person to have an SSN to live and work in the United States of America, nor does it require an SSN simply for the purpose of having one.
If there was a law for the SSN, why does a major food chain, Taco Bell, have "optional" printed by the SSN on their applications?
The IRS only requires the employer/payer to request the SSN. If the employee/payee refuses to give or doesn’t have an SSN, the employer sends an affidavit to the IRS stating that they requested the SSN and the employee refused, (Indemnification Letter). The penalties will not be assessed against the employer.
See also:
Nowlin vs. D.M.V. 53 Cal. App. 4th 1529 Apr. 2, 1997
For video, see - http://constitutionclub.ning.com/
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Wayne Bachmann on
-
My pleasure! I am 63, with no reservation about exposing my age! I am still a kid too. I listen to the recording of Hartford and myself from a couple weeks ago, and I still sound like I'm in my 20s. It's almost embarrassing. I am still able to RUN up stairs, but not for as many flights. The signs of time are creeping up on me. My mother says chocolate is a vegetable, and I am to eat all my vegetables! Maybe that is the reason I am still able to run, while a lot of my classmates have gone by the wayside!
Hartford is 73 and in about the same condition I am. To look at him is like looking at a 30ish person whose body is showing a little age, with grey hair. It is amazing how well preserved he is, and still vibrant and energetic. As a person thinketh, so is he! (or she)
Since you mention that you are a Virgo, I am Caprihorneycorn! That term was relayed to me by a fellow Capricorn, claiming to be a Caprihorneycorn. I don't get into that stuff much, but I know it is applicable if you use it in an astronomy perspective. Astrology is Satan's duplication of astronomy. Everybody has the ability to choose, rather than Satan's plan of being doomed to a certain path regardless of your personal choices.
-
-
-
You just triggered a question. How old is old? You must be telling on your age by using the term "reverberating". I grew up in the 50s and 60s, and am very familiar with the old "reverb units before we had stereo. I still have one stashed to go in my 55Chevy pickup or 61 Corvair, whichever one I get finished first.
-
-
Wayne! Ha, Ha.. you are funny..asking a female for her age! Love it!
Well, let us put it this way, I love the English language and the use of same, been that way since in grade school; I pick at people that spell wrong, talk wrong like I've got, which should be, I have, etc.
I am old enough that I was born on the heels of the end of WWII, does that help? You have a good one Wayne!
-
-
OK, so you are age sensitive, as most women are, and I did it for the fun of it!! So, is that where you picked up on "reverbs"?
-
-
-
My computer is not user friendly with outlook express, and won't do it. I fervently hate that system. If anyone knows how to make it work, I may be open to it. I have only had one computer years ago that it would work with, and it was a lot of trouble setting it up, with help. A third party had to be called in who was a pro on it, and she had trouble with it.
-
-
Hotmail now uses Outlook; more often than not, the message, Outlook cannot process your request, try back later!
-
-
I don't use Hotmail. Is that the problem?
-
-
Who is "they" and what were their actions?
-
-
Aaron,
Thanks for the links. I don't have time to read it all now, but there is a lot of accurate information contained therein.
-
-
Another side bar. We might want to start calling this site the Anti-Constitution Club.
William Kern wrote: > I was startled speechless last night (4-3-00) to hear some guy on C-Span > (I think-maybe it was Discovery) say, "Most Americans don't understand > that the Constitution and The Bill of Rights only apply to people in the > U. S. government. To Americans, they mean nothing." That's a fair > paraphrase of his statement. > If one listens long enough, even the elite will spill the beans! > William >
Subject: Re: [theseries] Constitution & Bill of Rights Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 21:25:52 -0400 From: Big Al <bigal123@ncol.net>
Yes quite so. Read the cases I posted to William and you will get a better understanding that even the state constitutions were never presented to the average man on the street to ratify or to not ratify. Every original States’ constitutions so state.
In fact, all of them parrot New Jersey’s and here is the direct quote from the original 1776 July 2nd, NJ constitution "The constitution of 1776 was not submitted to the people, but its publication was ordered by the convention by the constitution of July 3, 1776." page 599 N.J.S.A. Const. Art. 4-end.
Who were these in convention? All the land holders, power brokers and elite. Those having as the constitution states " a freeholder having a worth of at least 1000 pounds, proclamation money, (that's silver my friend as 2.2 dollars per pound), personal and real estate, and those having 500 pounds." Now the electors were to have "a worth of 50 pounds, proclamation money, clear estate to the same and resided in the county for 12 months."
Does that sound like the average man on the street who was lucky to make a dollar a day? Not on your sweet bippy. That is why the State constitutions where drafted in secrecy just like the US constitution was. A man has already put this out on the net as he went to each of the original states and pulled every original constitution after I told him this happened in N.C. and Jersey. I forget his name but he posted it about 10 months ago. Every state had the same verbiage that it was not presented to the people.
Only Law merchants having enormous sums of money were allowed to hold office. Big Al.
-
-
As I was taught, that is because they didn't want non land owners creating laws that went against the land owners, similar to the Mexicans moving up here, and taking the country over, as they are anyway.
© 2025 Created by Keith Broaders.
Powered by
