In the linked article from Reuters, we have a quote from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that supports my belief.
"We affirm the dismissal of these claims because Hansen's complaint fails to specify the particular statutes and regulations requiring use of an SSN (Social Security number) that he objects to, but instead seeks a general declaration that he and his son are entitled to never use an SSN."
Do you know which particular statutes and regulations require you to get a SSN or pay taxes? Or did you volunteer to do so, like me?
6 comments:
No I don't but I'd like to; therefore, please share w/ the rest of us if you know.
My point is that I don't know where the requirement is. AND having to know where it is in order to refute it will be very difficult if it doesn't actually exist!
Catch-22!
I don't think it exists. Otherwise, all those accounting lawyers for them super rich folks would have found it by now but then this case proves otherwise...humn things that make you say humn, humn?
I don't think that it does, either. But that's what makes it so hard to (dis)prove. They've hidden the lack in a stack of (il)legalese.
Bah!
I had the pleasure of looking up the IRS's explanation of these issues, and it's telling that it relies heavily on case law instead of statutory law. Either, well applied, will get you sent to jail, but Constitutionally speaking, the actual law is the one Congress passed and....the IRS doesn't deign to mention.
Bah!
Post a Comment