LEGAL DISCLAIMER
I am not a Tax Lawyer, Nor do I play Dan Evans on the internet.
I am not a Certified Public Accountant, Nor do I play Paul Thomas on the internet.
I am not an Enrolled Agent, Nor do I play Richard Macdonald on the internet.
DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR ANYTHING ON THIS PAGE.
Go look it up for yourself.

U.S. Federal Income Tax

Subjugation by taxation

Table of Contents

Shyster1040: Expert Poser

       I have crossed words with this news:misc.taxes poster on various occasions.  In the latest go-rounds, I set up topic threads naming each of my adversaries by name. You will see some of the results of that attempt to get Shyster1040 to debate me on a point by point basis, one on one without interuption from the other posters on the pages that follow this one.

        This page shows the extent I will go to nail down the truth. This page also shows that one had better have one's facts straight if one is going to engage with me. 

        What would you do if you know you are debating a person willing to spend 4 hours researching law and setting up a single web page such as this to show the truth where you have posted a falsehood?  Especially if it is VERY important that you don't loose the debate?

        Shyster1040 attempts to invalidate my posted data with a variety of techniques.  He likes to nakedly "assert" that I am wrong.  He likes to call me names.  He likes to post Technically Correct Pseudo Refutation's.  He likes to post 100 word run-on sentences that must be dismantled in order to address all the points brought up in that sentence.  He ignores points brought specifically to his attention, and lately, he has taken to totally ignoring entire posts in a thread called, Dale E v. Shyster1040. 

        He won't debate with me directly, but he will RUDELY interupt dialog in other threads where I am attempting to get others of "them" to have one on one, point by point debate.  So much for telling you all about my motivation for this series of pages dedicated to exposing Shyster1040's... Uh... Errors in fact.

        Links to the subsequent Shyster1040 pages can be found at the bottom of each Shyster1040 page, or from the THEM index page.


I sold someone a web hosting account for $100 but they are asking me for a W9 form to request for TIN even though I am a corp. Do I have to legally give one to him? Out of the 5000+ customers, I have nobody ever asked me to send one.

        And the "advice" from an anonymous poster using the moniker Shyster1040 that followed:

He's just being very careful (but legal). Since he's paying you for (presumably) services, he is a withholding agent for purposes of the withholding tax on payments to foreigners and must do withholding unless he can reliably associate the payment with paperwork showing that you (your company, actually) are not a foreigner. That is where the W-9 comes in, it can be used for these purposes. (The instructions for the form are available on the IRS website and explain in better detail).

You don't have to give him a W-9, but if you don't he's entitled to withhold on your payment at the rate of either 28% or 30%. So, unless you want to get only $70 - $72 bucks for what you sold, you should give him a W-9. If your company doesn't have a TIN (the EIN for corporations), then you should probably get one.
CITE

       Emphasis is mine.

26 CFR 1.1441-7(a)

Sec. 1.1441-7  General provisions relating to withholding agents.

(a) Withholding agent defined--
(1) In general.

For purposes of chapter 3 of the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations under such chapter, the term withholding agent means any person, U.S. or foreign, that has the control, receipt, custody, disposal, or payment of an item of income of a foreign person subject to withholding, including (but not limited to) a foreign intermediary described in Sec. 1.1441-1(e)(3)(i), a foreign partnership, or a U.S. branch described in Sec. 1.1441-1(b)(2)(iv)(A) or (E).

        If ANY person "has the control, receipt, custody, disposal, or payment of an item of income" that belongs to you, and you are NOT a foreign person, then that other person IS NOT a withholding agent.  If that person IS NOT a withholding agent, then that person IS NOT "required to deduct and withhold any tax under the provisions of section 1441, 1442, 1443, or 1461."

       If you are NOT a foreign person, the person paying you is NOT a withholding agent.

26 USC 7701(a)(16)

Sec. 7701. Definitions
 
-STATUTE-
(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof -
(16) Withholding agent
The term ''withholding agent'' means any person required to deduct and withhold any tax under the provisions of section 1441, 1442, 1443, or 1461.

       If the person paying you is NOT a withholding agent then the provisions of sections 1441, 1442, 1443, or 1461 requiring the deduction and withholding of any tax DO NOT APPLY.

26 CFR 1.1441-1(a)


Sec. 1.1441-1  Requirement for the deduction and withholding of tax on payments to foreign persons.

(a) Purpose and scope.
This section, [1.1441-1]  Secs. 1.1441-2 through 1.1441-9, and 1.1443-1 provide rules for withholding under sections 1441, 1442, and 1443 when a payment is made to a foreign person.

       If you are not a foreign person the rules for withholding under sections 1441, 1442, 1443, or 1461 DO NOT APPLY.


The longer winded version that looks at this in closer detail can be found here
Eventually that page will be edited and moved.
No Dale, the post from you that I replied to specifically said that you would ignore the Tax Court completely until and unless someone could prove that you could be forced into it. It said nothing about whether you could be forced into it to litigate your unpaid taxes. Thus, I did in fact provide precisely the proof you asked for.

Here's another thing you're wrong about - too bad I didn't get to add it to my list on the other thread.

BTW, how many other of my posts have you fetishistically collected and devoted an entire webpage to? That's really sick.

CITE

BTW, how many other of my posts have you fetishistically collected and devoted an entire webpage to? That's really sick.

Just the one where you are clearly and provably wrong.

If I feel ambitious, I'll engage with you on some of your other lies of ignorance or malfeasance and add that to your page.

CITE
Just the one where you are clearly and provably wrong.

If I feel ambitious, I'll engage with you on some of your other lies of ignorance or malfeasance and add that to your page.


Then:

(a) you really are a sicko - I suppose you dress up in your mommie's old undies and spank the monkey while re-reading my mistakes; and

(b) there's no need to maintain a separate website for your mistakes because this site is sufficient - everything you've posted here is wrong (including your attempts to point out my errors - as I mention, while you pointed out that I had not properly construed the withholding agent issue, you failed to grasp that the reason for the error was the failure to apply the presumption rules - under those rules, if the payor had been required to presume that the payee was foreign (as in the case where payment is to be made to a foreign account), then the payor would have had custody of an item of income of a foreign person, and would have been required to withhold in the absence of reliable documentation - i.e., a complete W-9.  Thus, while pointing out my own error, you also succeeded in making your own error - unlike mathematics, two errors do not make for a correct answer.

CITE
A detailed analysis of the minutia of Shyster's post follows:

(b) there's no need to maintain a separate website for your mistakes because this site is sufficient
Ad hominem.

- everything you've posted here is wrong (including your attempts to point out my errors
Ad hominem; naked assertion followed by a second assertion that is still an ad hominem.

- as I mention, while you pointed out that I had not properly construed the withholding agent issue,
Three empty space filler words, comma; a point made that I pointed out an error on his part; stated as a set up for his excuse in the next line.

you failed to grasp that the reason for the error was the failure to apply the presumption rules
Attempt to pin an error on myself (fail to grasp the reason for his error) "the reason" (excuse) for "the" error (not "his" error); cite to "presumption rules" not in evidence the shyster "failed to apply".

- under those rules,

We, the people of the United States are NOT under those [presumption] rules.

 if the payor had been required to presume that the payee was foreign
Continuation with the [presumption] rule cite; the big IF; As in IF the payor was required... That's the point, The payor IS NOT REQUIRED to presume...  I'll address this in more detail in the next table cell down.

(as in the case where payment is to be made to a foreign account),
A payment to a foreign account was not in evidence in the post you spewed a reply to. (See top cell in this table)

then the payor would have had custody of an item of income of a foreign person,
But that's not the case that you replied to. (See top cell in this table)

and would have been required to withhold in the absence of reliable documentation
But that's not the case that you replied to. (See top cell in this table)

- i.e., a complete W-9. 
Which NO law requires a US citizen working solely inside a state of the union to complete.
Go ahead and challenge me on this.  I need some motivation to put together a W-9 page.

Thus, while pointing out my own error, you also succeeded in making your own error
Unsubstantiated, naked assertion.

- unlike mathematics, two errors do not make for a correct answer.
How's that shoe leather taste?  You have not cited, nor have you proven, an error on my part in regard to this topic.

I just might have to examine your long winded BS posts to see if you are as goofy in those other posts as you are with this one.

26 CFR 1.1441-1(b)(3)


(b)(3) Presumptions regarding payee's status in the absence of documentation--
(b)(3)(i) General rules.

A withholding agent (within the meaning of paragraph (b)(2)(vii) of this section) that cannot, prior to the payment, reliably associate a payment of an amount subject to withholding (as described in Sec. 1.1441-2(a)) with valid documentation may rely on the presumptions of this paragraph (b)(3) to determine the status of the payee as a U.S. or a foreign person and the payee's other relevant characteristics (e.g., as an owner or intermediary, as an individual, trust, partnership, or corporation).

        One is NOT a withholding agent unless the payee is a foreign person.  Therefore Chapter 3, sections 1441, 1442, 1443, and 1461 ONLY deal with foreign persons.  If one is NOT a withholding agent, one is not required to comply with rules for withholding agents.  Therefore, no rules, and no presumptions apply.

26 CFR 1.1441-1(b)(3)(iii)


(b)(3)(iii) Presumption of U.S. or foreign status.

A payment that the withholding agent cannot reliably associate with documentation is presumed to be made to a U.S. person, except as otherwise provided in this paragraph (b)(3)(iii), in paragraphs (b)(3) (iv) and (v) of this section, or in Sec. 1.1441-5 (d) or (e).

(b) General rules of withholding.
(3) Presumptions regarding payee's status in the absence of documentation.
(iii) Presumption of U.S. or foreign status.
(A) Payments to exempt recipients.
(B) Scholarships and grants.
(C) Pensions, annuities, etc.
(D) Certain payments to offshore accounts.
(iv) Grace period.
(v) Special rules applicable to payments to foreign intermediaries.

Sec. 1.1441-5  Withholding on payments to partnerships, trusts, and estates.

The Punch Line

A payment that the withholding agent cannot reliably associate with documentation is presumed to be made to a U.S. person,
1.1441-1(b)(3)(iii)

       Why is this actually stated just like it is? 

        No law, no duty attaches unless and until the law specifically reaches out and touches the "person" to which the law applies.  And conversely, no "person" is touched by any law unless they do or don't do some action that the law requires.  NONE of the rules and regulations of the Nuclear Regulatory Agency apply to me unless and until I start messing with radioactive substances.  Likewise NONE of the rules of statute 1441 and the regulations thereunder touch ANY U.S. person (U.S. resident citizen).

        Without a doubt, the writers attempted to make the rules look like a U.S. person was required to fill out a form W-9 under the rules of 1441.  The W-9 is not a document that has been approved by the OMB for use in collecting information under the rules of the 1974 paperwork reduction act.  THAT subject is for a different page.

The longer winded version that looks at this in closer detail can be found here
Eventually that page will be edited and moved.

Table of Contents

Next Shyster1040 Page