MEMO ON SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER

THE TRUTH ON SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER

   When you review Public Agencies Opposed to Social Security Entrapment v. Margaret M. Heckler,613 F. Supp. 558 and the subsequent appellate proceedings, you'll be entertained to know that as early as the late seventies, government employees, not to mention private citizens, were surrendering out the social security program. The Congress wrote a statute to force them in, claiming an interest in the public welfare, but the government lost. Hundreds of thousands of public employees during the mid-1980’s successfully liberated themselves out of this fraudulent scheme.     
   
   Social security is a government benefit administered by the United States within its territories. It began with FDR's "New Deal," the political platform upon which he was elected to office only a few years after the stock market crash of 1929. In true form of government creating a need for itself, FDR and his banker cronies from Great Britain engineered the crash of '29 and you'll find this proved adequately in the Appendix to the Congressional Record of 1940.

   
     "It was told by a heavyweight American 
 financier before the crash came that the 
 crash was coming, that it would be permitted 
 to run to the danger point, and that when 
 the danger point was passed it would be 
 reversed by measures carefully prepared in   advance to meet the situation."


  “Appendix to the Congressional Record, 1940 After the Social Security Act of 1935, the governors of each state of the union were extorted into participating in this scheme under threat of an enormous tax imposed by the United States. Their submission allowed them to defer this burden onto the citizens as we see it in operation today that was the “Deal”. They may withdraw at any time but they'd lose their subscription to monopoly money. Federal Reserve Notes. 

   
   I have not found any law which admits that you are mandatory-ed  or can find no law requiring anyone to either use or apply for a social security number as a condition of contract in America. It took me 9 months to find, but rec Part 301.6109-l(c) of the Code of Federal Regulations states that if someone is going to pay you money, then he must ask you for a social security number. If you refuse, he is required by regulation to tell you that you must give him one and that it’s required by law. Obviously, it's not required by law but he is required to tell you that. In other words, the regulation requires him to lie. After you refuse to disclose a number for the second time, his next obligation is to attach an affidavit to any statements he's required to file using your number stating that he's fulfilled his requirement to ask you for a social security number. 

   
   In other words, when it comes to disclosing a social security number, no one, absolutely no one, can Require you to do it just so he can meet his own filing requirements. Please review Geiringer v. Davis, 988 F. 2d 1344. 61 

   
   The social security tax is a mandatory tax placed only on the receipt of wages. If you're not earning wages, you have no social security tax liability. A known case to the IRS wanted to penalize someone thousands of dollars for several tax returns in which he claimed his children as dependents while they had no social security numbers. They still have no numbers and are encouraged to keep it that way and educate his children about this fraud. 

   
   This is what I found: Prior to August 20 the , 1996, Section 6109(e) of the Code required disclosure of social security numbers for dependents claimed on tax returns; however, it was repealed on August 20^th  1996 (Pub. L. 104-188, Title I, § 1615(a) (2) (A), Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1853) Prior to December 19, 1989, there was a $5 penalty for failing to supply the TIN of a dependent claimed on a tax return. This appeared under Section 6676(e) until it was repealed on December 19 the, 1989: 

       "Penalty for failure to supply TIN of       dependent." If any person required under 
 section 6109(e) to include the TIN of any   dependent on his return fails to include such   number on such return (or includes an 
 incorrect number), such person shall, unless
 it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable   cause and not willful neglect, pay a penalty 
 of $5 for each such failure." 

“Repealed. - Pub. L. 101-239, Title VII, § 7711(b) (l), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2393. 

  The Problems Resolution Officers  probably have a fit because they are  going to have to abate the penalties because there's no law to enforce them! 

   Here is the current statute relating to deductions for dependents having no SSN: 26 USC § 151"(e) Identifying information required.  

     "No exemption shall be allowed under this       section with respect to any individual unless
 the TIN of such individual is included on the 
 return claiming the exemption." 

    “As of January 6 the, 1997, there was no monetary penalty for not using an SSN for your children when claiming themes dependents on a tax return. The penalty statute of $5 was repealed in December of 1989 and the"6109 e) requirement" was repealed in August of 1996. In essence, the time between 1989 and 1996 in which the “requirement" was a statute, was not enforceable because the penalty statute was not in force. It seems now that the only "penalty" is not being able to claim your children as dependents. 

   
   I would encourage everyone doing this to refuse to get your children a SSN: number just to claim them, as it would be equivalent to selling them to the government, or putting a price on their heads. And DO NOT FILL OUT A BIRTH CERTIFICATE. NO LAW STATES YOU NEED TO HAVE ONE.  You shouldn't be signing a Form W-4 or filing a tax return anyway.