Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Opening Bank Accts Without Soccial Security

Opening Bank Accts Without Soccial Security

Ratings: (0)|Views: 9 |Likes:
Published by jai_mann1036

More info:

Published by: jai_mann1036 on Jun 20, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Volume 9, No. 2 www.antishyster.com adask@gte.net 972-418-8993
Virtually everyone in the Consti-tutionalist community senses that theSocial Security Number (SSN) is farmore than a device that allows govern-ment to track us and invade our privacy– it is one of the primary instrumentsby which we surrender our unalienablerights and become government’s sub- jects rather than collective sovereigns.A number of strategies have been pro-posed to revoke our SSNs and regainour unalienable rights. Some of thesestrategies seem workable, others un-likely.But usually, the decision to re-voke one’s SSN is compromised by ourneed for bank accounts. Yes, I may beable to free myself from the politicaldisability of Social Security, but howcan I stay in business if banks won’topen accounts without SSNs? In otherwords, what good does it do me to re-gain my freedom if I can’t cash anychecks and am thereby relegated to asubsistence standard of living?Our conflicting needs to bank andbe free are so onerous and fundamen-tal that a solution to the “banking with-out SSN” problem is very nearly theConstitutionalist’s “Holy Grail”.In March 14, 1999, I received thefollowing Email from J. D. Kingston,“a retired businessman and retired judge” concerning the mandatory useof Social Security Numbers to securebank accounts. Those of you who areinterested in banking without SocialSecurity Numbers should find Mr.Kingston’s opinions illuminating:Dear Alfred,You and your readers may be in-terested in the following series of e-mails. In Mid June, AD. 1998, I re-ceived a postcard from United Commu-nity Bank (UCB), 2100 FM 407, High-land Village, TX 75077
The postcardwas an invitation for me to “Join Us ForOur Opening And Dedication . . .Theywere obviously a new bank looking forsome business.Since the postcard includedUCB’s e-mail address, I sent them ane-mail informing them that due to mysincere and truly held scriptural beliefs,I did not possess a social security num-ber, and then asked them if they wouldaccommodate me with a non-interestbearing account. The following are aseries of e-mails between the bank’srepresentative, Rick Shoemake, andmyself [J. Kingston].
25 Jun 1998
Dear Mr. Kingston,Thank you for your interest in ourbank. Though we are a new bank, weare staffed with professionals withmany years of experience. The servicesyou made reference to are services thatwe do offer. However, by regulation weare required to have local forms of iden-tification and a SSI # is not optional.While we respect your very strong con-victions, we unfortunately must com-ply with the regulatory requirements.Sincerely, Rick ShoemakeUnited Community Bank, N.A.Member FDIC
25 Jun 1998
Dear Rick,Thank you for your prompt re-ply. In your reply you stated that, “. . .by regulation we are required to havelocal forms of identification and a SSI# is not optional.” I was totally unawareof that. Hope I didn’t cause you anyinconvenience. BTW, would you be sokind to give me the citation of the regu-lation of which you speak? Thanksagain for your time.Respectfully, JD Kingston
27 Jun 1998
Dear Mr. Kingston;I would be happy to provide youthe regulation reference for the require-ment of the TIN # [Taxpayer Identifi-cation Number],
The following are Fed-eral Register references: 37 FR 13279(6/30/72); 37 FR 26517 (12/8/72); Title26, Section 6109 of the Internal Rev-enue Code; 38 FR 3341 (2/5/93); 38 FR32336 (9/6/74)Sincerely, Rick Shoemake
28 Jun 1998
Dear Rick,Thank you once again for yourprompt reply to my request. (And a“banker” answering email on Saturday!):-) This indicates that the materialprinted in your brochure is not merely just more “propaganda” put out by busi-ness, but is the absolute truth. I appre-ciate you.Respectfully, JD Kingston
Banking WithoutSocial Security
by J.D. Kingston
Volume 9, No. 2 www.antishyster.com adask@gte.net 972-418-8993
2 Jul 1998
Dear Mr. Kingston,Thank you for your kind words.Yes we do work on Saturdays! As acommunity bank we are here when thecustomer needs access to banking ser-vices. Have a good day.Rick ShoemakeP.S. What line of work are youin?
5 Jul 1998
Dear Rick,It’s nice to see that some banksare concerned with their customers. Toofew businesses today seem to forget thatit’s their customers who allow the billsto be paid. You’re to be commended.There’s an old analogy about therailroads. They used to flourish. That’swhen they thought they were in the“people” business. They moved “people”and “people’s” commodities. Then oneday, the big shots decided they were notin the “people” business, but in the “rail-road” business. The rest is history!I’m a retired businessman and re-tired judge. My wife and I travel 99%of the time and we would like to makeTexas our “home base,” hence, our in-terest in your bank. We’re the kind of people who like to support the “littleguy,” the “mom & pop” stores, and the“new kid on the block” so to speak.We actually have a bank now whodoesn’t require a TIN from us, and Iguess we’ll have to stay with them. If you have any “age” under your belt (I’m56), you probably know that bureau-crats “never” pass a statute or regula-tion that doesn’t contain a loophole.I’d be happy to share the “loop-hole” to 26 USC 6109 with you if youhave any interest. Good luck with yourbank, and to you personally.J.D. Kingston
6 Jul 1998
Always interested in learning,what is the loophole in 26 USC 6109?Rick Shoemake
12 Jul 1998
Re: 26 USC 6109 Part IDear Rick,You would ask! :-) Sorry forthe delay. Just got back from a two week trip. Had a great time. Supposed to leaveagain toward the end of the month.Hope I have enough time to satisfacto-rily answer your question before wehave to leave.Rather than write a 10 page e-mail, which is unnecessarily cumber-some and unwieldy, I will split the an-swer to your question into parts (thisbeing part I).I’ll try to be brief, but that alwaysisn’t possible when trying to explain aconvoluted law. E.g., 26 USC 6109 iscomprised of subsections “(a)” through“(h)” as well as many sub-subsections–but–it has
subsections “( f )“ and
subsection “(g)”!!!The portion of 26 USC 6109 towhich you referred is 26 USC6109(a)(3) which is titled, “Furnishingnumber of another person.” It statesthat, “Any person...” (i.e., the Bank–which is an artificial person under thelaw) “Any person required under theauthority of this title to make a return,statement, or other document with re-spect to another person . . .” (i.e., yourcustomer) “. . . shall request . . .” (no-tice the word “request” here – noticethat Congress did not use a word like“demand” or “require”–but they usedthe word “request”) “. . . shall requestfrom such other person, and shall includein any such return, statement, or otherdocument, such identifying number asmay be prescribed for securing properidentification of such other person.”The word “request” was usedhere so this section would be foundcompatible to a myriad of other laws,including, but not limited to the PrivacyAct. If a word like “demand” or “re-quire” were used in this section, Con-gress ran the risk of having this sectionstruck down by a court of law.For a company to comply with 26USC 6109(a)(3), said company mustmerely “request” an identifying num-ber from a customer or an employee;but only if said company is required bylaw to make a return, statement, or otherdocument. This “return requirement”would include virtually all corporations,most partnerships, and many soleproprietorships.
Pursuant to this section, a companyis required to “request” a number. Thecompany is NOT required to “receive” anumber. Nor, is the customer required togive a number.
Volume 9, No. 2 www.antishyster.com adask@gte.net 972-418-8993
The “bad news” is, that if you area company required to file a return anddo not include all information (that in-cludes identifying numbers for each of your customers) on the forms you sendto an agency of government, pursuantto 26 USC 6721 and 6722, you can befined $50.00.The “good news” is, that there isa loophole for each of those sectionsalso. I’ll go into more detail, if you sodesire, (i.e., if you’re still interested inlearning) in a subsequent “part,” per-haps part II which will follow whentime allows.Respectfully, J.D. Kingston
12 Jul 1998
Thanks for the info. Keep it com-ing! Have a good day,Rick Shoemake
19 Jul 1998
Re: 26 USC 6109 Part III’ve studied a little history and itseems that mankind has had an affinityfor sleeping and eating for some 6000years now! Guess it will always be withus. 8-) It’s admirable to note that you’veplaced “spending time with your fam-ily” in the same category.Your previous P.S. reminds mesomething my father told me when Iwas 17 years old. He said, “Son, youcan be a success in any endeavor youchoose, if every day, you will committo working half a day–and it reallydoesn’t matter which 12 hours it is!”On to the subject matter at hand.In Part I, we learned that pursuant to26 USC 6109, a company is requiredto “request” an identifying numberfrom a customer/employee, but a com-clusion of incorrect information”), thecompany can be fined $50 [26 USC6721(a)( 1)] for each failure but saidfines shall not exceed $250,000!!!Whoa!
26 USC 6721(e) Penalty in caseof 
intentional disregard 
(Emph.added–JK.).If one or more failures describedin 26 USC 6721(a)(2) are due to
inten-tional disregard 
(Emphasis added –JK.) of the filing requirement (or thecorrect information reporting require-ment), then, with respect to each suchfailure –26 USC 6721(e)(2) the penaltyimposed under subsection 26 USC6721(a) shall be $100 . . .26 USC 672l(e)(3) in the case of any penalty determined under para-graph 26 USC 6721(2) - 26 USC672l(e)(3)(A) the $250,000 limitationunder 26 USC 6721(a)(l) shall not ap-ply . . .So now, if you omit an identify-ing number with “intentional disregard”[26 USC 6721(e)] your fine (or penalty)is increased from $50 to $100 per oc-currence. The maximum of $250,000is lifted and you may now be fined aninfinite amount!
It’s no wonder companies don’t “re-quest” a number. They see these statutesand they
a number. Who in theirright mind would subject their companyto such huge fines (and still expect to keeptheir jobs–so they can “ sleep, eat, see myfamily, etc.”)?
Sounds pretty grim–so far. I toldyou there was “good news” too. Maybewe’ll get to it next time. Keep balanc-ing the “customer service” with qual-ity “family time.” Wish I would havedone better!Respectfully, J.D. Kingston
25 Jul 1998
26 USC 6109 Part IIIIn Part II, we learned that any per-son who is required to submit a reportthat includes provisions for a TIN [orEIN (Employers Identification Num-ber) or SSN], and omits that informa-tion, is subject to a fine of $50 per oc-currence, but said fine shall not exceed$250,000 in any year! Now, the goodnews, aka the truth.pany is not required to “obtain” an iden-tifying number.Now, suppose you have a cus-tomer with a “non-interest bearing”account and it’s time to file a report withthe banking authorities or some otherentity. Suppose you enter the person’sname on the report and leave blank thecorresponding box that asks for thatperson’s identifying number. Now whathappens?26 USC 6721 is titled “Failure tofile
information returns.” (Em-phasis added. Leaving off a number that
 you never obtained 
does not make thereturn “incorrect.”)
26 USC 6721(a) Imposition of Pen-alty.
26 USC 6721 (a)(1)
In general.In the case of a failure described in para-graph (a)(2) [below], by any personwith respect to an information return,such person shall pay a penalty of $50for each return with respect to whichsuch a failure occurs, but the totalamount imposed on such person for allsuch failures during any calendar yearshall not exceed $250,000.
26 USC 6721(a)(2)
Failures sub- ject
to penalty. For purposes of paragraph(1), the failures described in this paragraphare —
26 USC 6721(a)(2)(B)
any fail-ure to include all of the information
to be shown on the return or theinclusion of incorrect information.[emph. add.]So, if a company is “required”[26 USC 6721(a)(2)(A)] by its regula-tory authorities, to include “informa-tion” (such as an identifying number)on a return, and it fails to do so (ormakes an innocent mistake by “the in-

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->