neo
Forum Replies Created
Stija,
You had said earlier:
Quote:I can tell you from personal first hand experience just 5 months ago that the local SSA office would not process the SS-5 with “alien authorized for work” selected along with the U.S.A. Naturalization certificate as proof of that status. To them I am a U.S. Citizen and they will not and cannot accept it. They care not what my arguments are. If i want to be an “alien authorized for work” i need to submit any of the multitude of visas, green card or authorization for employment card.This is not surprising, but a certificate of naturalization commutes nationality, which is the equivalent of constitutional citizenship through the Fourteenth Amendment, not statutory citizenship which is based on a relevant domicile within or without the territorial division of the nation where an Act of Congress is locally applicable. The Tier 1 bureaucrats at the SSA are ASSuming that since their procedures deal only with visas, green cards, and the like (i.e. things for foreign nationals) with regard to an “alien authorized to work,” then they are the only people that meet that criteria — not true. Congress does not regulate the “alien” civil status of an American National because that status is a political issue, thus it is not EVEN DISCUSSED in their policies or procedures — BECAUSE THEY LEGALLY CANNOT!!! Furthermore, they are showcasing their incredible legal incompetence in the matter, which they are not allowed to practice law on your behalf anyway.
Here's the problem with just “convincing” a payer to accept a W-8BEN. When the IRS comes knocking at Acme, Inc., here's how it's going to go down:
Agent Smith (IRS) — “Why aren't you withholding from the wages of Mr. Stija?”
Suzy Creamcheese (HR, Acme, Inc.) — “Agent Smith, Mr. Stija gave me this W-8BEN in place of a W-4”
Agent Smith — “Well . . . is he not a U.S. citizen?”
Suzy Creamcheese — “Well, he said he was a Union state Citizen — and he even gave us a nifty affidavit to boot.”
So . . . Agent Smith proceeds back to the IRS office to perform a “Records Query” on Mr. Stija. Agent Smith is not surprised to find that the IRS database reveals Mr. Stija as a “U.S. person,” as that was the last status processed by the IRS during Mr. Stija's most recent tax filing. Agent Smith decides to call his other “black-hat” friends in the “bat cave” at the SSA, and they too confirm that Mr. Stija was recently naturalized AND has a CSP Code of “A” as reflected in his Numident Record. Agent Smith knows that IRS records and SS records are the “16 lb sledge hammer” in any legal proceeding. Additionally, Agent Smith can now fine Acme, Inc. for not withholding, and he can probably go fine Mr. Stija's bank for allowing this as well if he utilized an account under that status. Because Mr. Stija did not follow the regulatory guidance of 20 CFR 422.110(a) with regard to changing his SSN status with the SSA . . . he was thus unable to follow the IRS' guidance in 26 CFR 301.6109-1(g)(1)(i) which would allow for an IRS status change to “nonresident alien.” The IRS will now hit Mr. Stija with a frivolous penalty for filing a 1040NR when the SSA transmits “wage” information with a CSP Code of “A” because a “U.S. Citizen” is not eligible to file a 1040NR. This is precisely what is happening!!!
We had all better get on the same sheet of music here or we will NEVER make any progress!!! The status MUST be changed with the SSA or the terrorism will NEVER STOP!!!!! The evidence that really counts will indict you 100% of the time — IRS Records and the SS Numident — ask Pete Hendrickson!!! The SSA is correct in stating that their procedures and policies don't provide for a “Legal Alien Allowed To Work” status for American Nationals. That is because it is 100% out of their purview. For them to deny your declaration is to dictate a political party or a religion to you, because they are dictating a federal domicile with no authority to do so — domicile is a political issue and is 100% your choice, therefore, so too is the civil status that choice of domicile commutes. Correct the status, and the IRS is off your back! Don't correct it, and you are in for a lifetime of conflict!!!
The only problem that I have seen is that only an “individual” can seek remedy under the Administrative Procedures Act of Title 5, with an “individual” being defined as a “citizen of the United States” (not an American “national”) or an “alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.” Thus, any procedure undertaken will have to be undertaken as a diversity of citizenship action.
Stija,
Here's the deal though . . .
Suppose as a State Citizen and statutory “nonresident alien” for the purposes of the Federal Income Tax you decided to serve your country through “service” in the “United States” (government). As a Federal “employee,” this “nonresident alien” is required by law to participate in Social Security. I know some here will dispute this, but this is how I read it. If you are an actual “wage” earner, then you must participate in the Social Security franchise. Their “employment” franchise — their stipulation. It's all voluntary. Without getting into an argument over this, let's move forward.
SSA issues two types of information returns, one for a “U.S. person” (SS-1099R), and one for a “nonresident alien” (SS-1042-S). We know tax status is based on domicile, and the SSA won't issue a SS-1042-S if you are designated as a “U.S. Citizen” with the SSA, thus, the “U.S. Citizen” civil status on Form SS-5 must be based on domicile too.
20 CFR 422.110(a) tells you that you can change your status with the SSA. 26 CFR 301.6109-1(g)(1)(i) also says you can change your status with the IRS. If the administrators would just accept your affidavit, all should work smoothly.
Based on what you said though, I am curious why you got flagged by the IRS for $5K. Had you ever previously filed a 1040? Maybe USCIS had you on the books as being non-naturalized, thus you were a “resident alien” for the purposes of the tax and a “U.S. person.”
The extent they have gone to to construct this obstacle course proves to me this is the right course of action, not to mention the fact that there is nothing that disputes it. I agree with your assessment though regarding “winning” within the system. I must say, the deck appears to be heavily stacked against escaping.
But all of that being said, I believe there is a remedy, we just have to take the human element of cognitive dissonance out of it.
Here's a question though regarding a change of domicile . . .
When does the change of domicile legally take effect?
a. When you declare it?
b. When the paperwork and status on file reflects it?
If you would like to challenge this under the Administrative Procedures Act, an “individual” is defined as a “United States citizen” or as an “alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.” I cannot find a definition for “United States” in Title 5, but I'm sure they are not talking about nationality through the Fourteenth Amendment or the “citizenship clause” extended ex proprio vigore through an Act of Congress. Thus, only an “individual” can seek remedy through the Administrative Procedures Act or file a Civil Action — this is someone under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress.
Now, perhaps there may be a remedy under the “equal protection clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment for an “alien” to seek remedy through diversity of citizenship if the “alien” is not an “individual” by definition under Title 5 — I don't know. To admit to being an “individual” is to admit to being a “U.S. citizen.” But I do believe there is a remedy. I want to learn more about proceeding in Federal Court under diversity of citizenship.
Stija, could you elaborate a little bit more as to why you think you were hit with the $5K frivolous penalty? What might the government have had on file that would have indicated you were a “U.S. person” . . . can you think of anything? This is very important for us to trouble shoot. The fact that the SSA still thought you were an “alien” should have facilitated the IRS' acceptance of your 1040NR.
Admin,
Thanks, I'll start working on the table as well as obtaining the various pages missing from the online version of POMS.
Stija,
That's an interesting story . . . and to answer your question, no . . . I have not been there yet.
Here's the problem. The government and hence, the SSA can only regulate the “alien” status of a foreign national — not an American National. We also know that the SSA will not issue an SS-1042-S to a “U.S. Citizen”/CSP Code “A”. We know tax status is NOT based on nationality, so the Tier 1 knuckleheads at the SSA don't know what they are talking about. POMS only addresses the issue with regard to foreign nationals because those are the only people they can regulate with that status. So, they think that because that is the only thing addressed, that it is the only valid instance which we know is not true. A partially true statement is false — whereas a true statement may not be the entire truth. It is the brilliance behind the scheme.
The reason NRAs are getting hit with a frivolous penalty is probably as follows:
1. SSA believes “individual” to be a “U.S. Citizen” based on “their understanding.”
2. “Employer” or payer which is treated AS IF an “employer” sends “wage” information to SSA
3. SSA logs “wage” information and then forwards this “wage” information together with CSP Code “A” to the IRS
4. “Taxpayer” files Form 1040NR
5. IRS flags return as frivolous — afterall, how can an “individual” with a CSP Code of “A” file a 1040NR?
A W-4 and W-8 are NOT enough — not if you want to breeze through the system. Now, we can file what we want, and fight the beast and the paper terrorism matrix in Martinsburg, WV for the rest of our lives. The folks at the SSA and IRS will never discuss any of these issues in any venue because:
1. they probably don't know it, and
2. If they did, they don't want the cat out of the bag.
Additionally, consider how the I-9 and E-Verify work to provide additional support and cognitive dissonance for other gatekeepers. USCIS only deals with foreign nationals. The SSA and the USCIS provide data input to DHS for forwarding to the E-Verify system. Since a political U.S. citizen (American National) with a foreign domicile is not a foreign national, there will be no record available from USCIS. Since their input is half of the data entry into E-Verify, and SSA provides the other half– an American National will not have information from USCIS corroborating the “alien” status. This results in a non-corroborating result when E-Verify is queried. This causes HR to reject your I-9 declaration of “An alien authorized to work.”
Stija, what you should have done is keep the original card that mandated evidence for “authorization to work” as an accompaniment. Notice what acts as the first and foremost document evidencing a write-to-work status on Form I-9 instructions — a U.S. Passport. Had you still had that status with the SSA, they would have no CSP Code to accompany your “wage” information when sent to the IRS. Then, a subsequent 1040NR filing would have no way of being flagged by the IRS. E-Verify results also cannot be used to discriminate those seeking “employment.” The U.S. passport is your ticket to a right-to-work status, regardless of what the dolts at the SSA say.
Once the SSA CSP Code properly reflects your “alien” status, you're good to go. Just follow the IRS' regulatory guidance by filing the appropriate tax forms (W-4, W-8, 1040NR) and now the government is fresh out of “U.S. person” evidence against you! Use a copy of your Numident and IMF to change your status with the DMV and prove your status to banks and private-sector payers. Give them copies along with your SSA-Free W-8BEN mod and they are 100% indemnified. But if the SSA still thinks you are a “U.S. Citizen” the filter in the system will flag you as frivolous. If SSA administrators balk, it will be time to conduct a hearing under the Administrative Procedures Act under Title 5. If that doesn't work, Federal District Court will be next.
Taking all of this into consideration proves in-and-of-itself that it is the truth. Every component — the SSA, DHS, USCIS, Banks, HR Departments, DMV . . . they all are working together to provide a very cumbersome obstacle course to overcome — not impossible, but tough. The government is not the problem, it's the sychophant beast worshipers of government who stand in our way.
Admin,
Regarding the meaning of “CSP” as in “CSP Code” . . . I cannot say with 100% certainty. The SSA refuses to answer that question!
I know that it is in the context of the 4 civil statuses provided in Block 5 — CITIZENSHIP of Form SS-5.
I would like to think that it stands for “Civil Status Protocol” — CSP. I know CSP Code “A” equates to a civil status election of “U.S. Citizen” and CSP Code “B” equates to a civil status election of “Legal Alien Allowed To Work.” I can presume that “Legal Alien Not Allowed To Work” would be a CSP Code of “C” and “Other” would be a CSP Code of “D”, but that would be presumptuous, thus I will not do it.
I am in the process of drawing up a request for congressional inquiry on the matter insofar as this all relates to their in-house use of my information. I have sent 3 carefully crafted letters to the Social Security Office of Public Inquiries. I have phrased my inquiries in such a way that regardless of how they answer my questions, they are pulling back the curtain on things they would rather have hidden, thus, they just don't answer me anymore! Telling, huh?
As for the civil status designations on Form SS-5 and Form I-9. It appears to me that the civil status designation is not 100% based on domicile, but a combination of nationality and domicile. The nationality must be considered first, which will then drive the applicable legislative jurisdiction from which a civil status can be ascertained. For example, as an American National domiciled in the 50 states, I am a “Legal Alien Allowed to Work.” A Foreign National domiciled in United States** would also be a “Legal Alien Allowed to Work,” whereas the American National in that instance would be a statutory “U.S. Citizen.” So the Supreme Court is precisely correct, the nationality AND the domicile paint the entire picture, and the final status is unique for each person in question.
I owe all of this revelation to the outstanding resources of famguardian, SEDM, and the blessing of discernment which comes only from the Spirit of Truth!!! Thanks for all of the leadership and guidance in this area!!!
I will continue to post what I find as well as proof of evidence.
Admin,
I understand. But hopefully the perspective I brought in my most recent post may have revealed, if nothing else, the operational tactics the IRS and the SSA use to keep the masses hog-tied into the status that most benefits the continued scheme of wealth transfer. It's my desire that every little bit of information or revelation may help even one person.
neo
I have been in an ongoing engagement of corresponding with the SSA. Typically, I have found their “Office of Public Inquiries” to be responsive to all of my questions . . . until recently. I have finally painted them into a corner, and now they are not responding. I would like to share a concept with this forum, simply for educational purposes and to perhaps provide additional insight as to how the “Chinese Handcuffs” of a Social Security Application and subsequent income tax filing work against people. All of that being said, I am fully aware the ministry does not advocate participation in SS. Again, this is for informational purposes only.
20 CFR 422.110 is entitled “Individual's request for change of record”
In this part, it tells you to re-submit an SS-5 if you wish to change your name or other personal identifying information previously submitted in connection with a SS application. I can say without equivocation, the information that most people would and probably should have changed, is the “U.S. Citizen” designation.
The SS-5 has a section on page 1 of the application which is subtitled: “Changing Information on your Social Security Record.” Among other things, it addresses a “citizenship change.” Item #3 on the application asks for place of birth, which in most instances would commute your nationality and political citizenship. However, Item #5 provides four interesting choices: “U.S. Citizen,” “Legal alien allowed to work,” “Legal alien NOT allowed to work,” and “Other.” Items 3 and 4 require approval from the Federal government, thus I don't believe they apply. However, I believe the appropriate selection for a Union state Citizen is #2, “Legal alien allowed to work” — NOT POLITICAL ALIEN . . . but LEGAL ALIEN. This describes someone domiciled in a legislatively foreign jurisdiction.
We know that SSA disburses information returns, thus forms SS-1099R and SS-1042S must be predicated on the same tax status basis as Title 26 — domicile and not nationality.
Let's now look at what the IRS has said is required to correct the status of your SSN. 26 CFR 301.6109-1(g)(1)(i) states in part:
Quote:A person may establish a different status for the number by providing proof of foreign status with the Internal Revenue Service under such procedures as the Internal Revenue Service shall prescribe, including the use of a form as the Internal Revenue Service may specify. Upon accepting an individual as a nonresident alien individual, the Internal Revenue Service will assign this status to the individual’s social security number.Now we know the SSA and the IRS are separated, yet they work in tandem like a couple of well-placed Bishops on a chess board. Recall, that an “employer” (actual or a payer treated as if an “employer” through agreement) will send a W-3 earnings report to the SSA at the end of the year. The SSA then sends this information to the IRS who patiently waits for a 1040 and an attached W-2 to corroborate the SSA's record.
If an “individual” tries to correct the status of his SSN by filing as a “nonresident alien” with a form 1040NR, but has not corrected the record with the SSA, who believes said “individual” is a “U.S. Citizen,” there is a non-harmonious conflict between the two. After all, how can a “U.S. Citizen” file a 1040NR? Only a “Legal alien” who is “nonresident” would be permitted to do such a thing. A “U.S. Citizen” would be required to file a 1040, thus, the contradiction releases the leash off of the dogs, and the pursuit against the 1040NR filing begins.
For this reason, if someone would like to correct their status with the IRS and the SSA commensurate with these agencies' own guidance, I believe a corrected SS-5 would need to be submitted on or about the same date that a “nonresident alien” tax status was established. This would keep the statuses consistent between the two agencies, thus avoiding the legal “snare” of a conflicted status between the IRS database and the SSA database.
One can only presume that a conflict in status between the two agencies would send up a red flag.
A great question for the SSA Office of Public Inquiries is with regard to the “U.S. Citizen” question. Simply put . . .
Quote:Dear Administrator,Is the “Citizenship” inquiry on Form SS-5 (Item #5) a question of one's nationality or domicile?
Thank you
They will not answer this question, because the answer IS domicile.
I personally spoke with a customs agent who had one of these money sniffing dogs . . . of all places . . . on the jet bridge of a Panama flight.
I asked him what “Spot” was searching for (even though I knew) . . . to which he replied, “Spot is a money sniffing dog.”
I asked him if there was a way to defeat the dogs.
He told me, “Put the money in a zip lock bag and 'Spot' will never smell it!”
Bada boom, bada bing!!!
My concern is that the new high-tech scanners at the airports will soon be able to count the money a person is carrying by virtue of RFID-type material in the money. Time is running out to move funds!!!
franklin,
That was nothing but a little attempt at satire on my part. I didn't really mean to imply that he is innocent of the allegations.
But, I do find it curious that a Supreme Court Justice would find himself in a predicament such as this. Perhaps he really does not understand how the system works. I don't know. I personally know of one however, that DOES know how the system works — thus, I find it amazing that he would allow himself into this predicament in the first place.
No . . . I wasn't trying to give him a pass.
I wouldn't be so quick to indict Justice Thomas.
Perhaps he knows his wife's “salary” really didn't constitute a “salary,” but rather, personal payments. Maybe she is a “nonresident alien” and her payments were neither “United States” sourced nor “effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States.”
That was a very interesting phone call? Does anyone know the date that call transpired?
That would all be great if it were true.
Hmmmmmmmmm!!! That doesn't make much sense. It seems like censure of speech . . . but hey, it's your forum.
Pete Hendrickson did the same thing to his forum participants.
I find it disappointing.
Admin,
It appears as if my last post has been redacted.
In particular, the last part of my post where I discuss the pros and cons of the method you advocate (U.S. Citizen election on the Form I-9)has been omitted from my post.
Why has that portion of my post been eliminated?
neo
Admin,
It appears you have added to your post after I responded . . . so I would like to address some of your additional comments.
I believe the way they alienate (no pun intended) Union state domiciliaries on the I-9 is by proffering the option called “non-citizen national of the United States,” versus just “non-citizen national,” the latter being a more generic term which describes BOTH American Samoans and Union state domiciliaries. Of course the “United States” they are referring to in the former is that territory which does NOT comprise the 50 Union states. By 'tacking on' “of the United States” after the term “non-citizen national,” they are able to separate the Union state domiciliaries from the Samoans who ARE domiciled in the Federal “United States.” Civil status is the context, thus “United States**” is the context. There is no changing gears between “United States” meanings within a given context!!!
You said:
Quote:And HERE is what DHS is going to do to you if you claim to be an alien on the I9 form. They will PRESUME, absent clarification, that you are a CONSTITUTIONAL alien and then enforce the following.
Now first of all, the Form I-9 does NOT get sent to DHS. It remains on file with the company who asked you to fill it out. The instructions clearly state this. Secondly, I would never claim “alien authorized to work” without defining that status to be a statutory alien domiciled without the “United States” comprising Federal territory ONLY. I would put this definition right at the top margin of the form. The definition would EXCLUDE any of the 50 Union states.
Then you said:
Quote:The only ones who get “U.S. passports” are people domiciled on federal territory. Passports issued to public officers in the government for work purposes are RED, while those issued to private human beings are BLUE. The RED passport is the “U.S. passport”. The BLUE passport is NOT a “U.S. passport”, but a “USA passport”.
I don't believe this to be the truth. I know plenty of people domiciled on Federal territory and their passport is IDENTICAL to mine. Their passport also says “United States of America” on the cover. I also had a red passport. It too said “United States of America” on it. So does the black diplomatic passport. Pictures of these passports are all over the web. This sounds like “whacky patriot” stuff. There is no proof for anything stated in your above quote. Remember, the term “United States” can also mean “United States of America.” We know the passport to be a political document. Thus the term “U.S. Citizen” on the DS-11 is, I believe, referring to a “national” of the U.S.A. This of course should be clarified on the DS-11 itself.
Then you quoted 8 CFR 235(b ), which stated in part:
Quote:[…](d) Alien applicants for admission.
(1) Each alien seeking admission at a United States port-of-entry must present whatever documents are required and must establish to the satisfaction of the inspecting officer that the alien is not subject to removal under the immigration laws, Executive Orders, or Presidential Proclamations, and is entitled, under all of the applicable provisions of the immigration laws and this chapter, to enter the United States.
My “U.S. passport” is evidence of my political citizenship! That pretty much ends the discussion as to whether or not I am a constitutional alien or not. I come and go through ports of entry 10 times/month. No officer has ever asked for a copy of my I-9 on file, nor have they ever produced one and interrogated me over my selections. You and I both know darn good-and-well what the REAL reason is for the existence of the I-9, and you said it; “to recruit more taxpayers.” I agree this is the REAL purpose of the form. A “U.S. Citizen” selection, even as you present it, sets you up for conflict with the payer regarding a W-8 submission. That's what the I-9 is trying to prevent, you establishing the “foreign” tax status — which is your true ticket out of the system.
The issue with the I-9 should be established to be either —
A ) Political context in which “U.S. Citizen” is the correct response, or;
B ) Civil context in which “alien authorized to work” (with no # required because of DOMESTIC POLITICAL STATUS) is the correct response.
I think either option works well, with the second, at very least “greasing the tracks” for a W-8 submission. The goal here is to be 'above board,' honest, and straight-forward with all dealings of the government and the private-sector payer. There is nothing to hide. Admittedly, option “B” is certainly going to raise some eyebrows around the water cooler in HR and in legal. But that's the only down-side I see there. I believe a well articulated explanation along with a copy of your U.S. passport, should be enough to pacify the lazy “legal eagles” in HR and make them confident that you are in fact legal to work. That's their concern. They're not capable of understanding this anyway because they just want to believe lies. That's what I have found.
Finally you said:
Quote:Lastly, you may want to go back and review the previous discussion on this subject so we don't have to reargue the same tired dead points:
You always say this, and I reject it completely! These are NOT dead points, but thoughtful and articulate discussion over some very important subjects. How else are we going to collectively develop new tactics and strategy for dealing with this stuff if dissenting opinions are constantly stifled and the inquirer shamed or belittled on the public forum for questioning that which has already been published by the host? I am NOT a sheep and I don't take your or anyone's opinions as truth . . . unless, like you say, you can back it up with proof. Is this also not what you yourself encourage? There is NO proof for the topic we are discussing. All we can do is establish a context by selecting either POLITICAL status, or CIVIL status. Once a status is selected, the proper meaning of “United States” is then established, and a proper election on the Form I-9 ensues — and the context alters the selection. There is no switching gears within a given context. This violates due process and invites a 'frivolous' smack-down by a judge. Nobody wants that. I submit to you both courses of action can work — both with pros and cons.
My method (“alien authorized to work”) creates more conflict and cognitive dissonance up front, but I believe establishes stronger evidence in support of other declarations such as tax status down the road. The work is required up front to establish with those accepting the form “WHY?” one is an “alien authorized to work.” However, once the I-9 is on file, that's pretty much some damning evidence working against DOJ shenanigans. Don't you think?
One thing I do believe we are in agreement on — and that is that the terms must be established on the form, and/or with the accompanying affidavit of citizenship, domicile, and tax status.
I agree. Your approach appears to be the safer method . . . and passes the 'common-sense-test' for most people.
Because of the increasingly pervasive use of electronic HR and payment systems, I find it to be potential trouble either way.
I've heard of people saying, ” . . . the company would not take my W-8 because my I-9 said 'U.S. Citizen' on it.” Now . . . I can presume this is because the HR folks don't understand the difference between political status and civil status. Or, it may be a function of how the I-9 truly is used to interface payment systems through e-Verify. This is something that I will find out, and report my findings to the ministry.
In the short term . . . I will concede your point, and select “U.S. Citizen,” while clarifying that it means “national” of the United States of America, and constitutional United States citizen under the 14th Amendment — but not the equivalent to “nationals and citizens of the United States” pursuant to 8 USC 1401.
Thanks for the discussion.
Well . . . what I would like to know is — why is there a need to change the form?
If you had to pick one of the 4 statuses proffered on the “Official” Form I-9 . . . what would it be?
Why is it that none of the proffered choices is acceptable?
My point is, if you define the “United States” to mean: 1) The “States” of 8 USC 1101(a)(36) and the “outlying possessions of the United States” of 8 USC 1101(a)(29), then there is absolutely no harm in stating that you are an “alien authorized to work,” whereby an alien reference number would not be required because of your natural born status as an American National through State Citizenship and the 14th Amendment. The “States” and the “outlying possessions of the United States” together form the “United States” where an “Act of Congress” is locally applicable, and where the sovereignty of the “United States” (Government) extends. Of course I'm foreign and “alien” with regard to this “United States.” This is stated unequivocally in the “Why you are a National, State National, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen” pamphlet on line 32 of page 39 and elsewhere.
I find this to be much more powerful. Sending in altered forms makes people at HR think you are up to some shenanigans. They are much more likely to accept your declaration when you can work with the provided government forms, and I agree. Plus, all that is needed in this instance is a definition of “United States.”
I have heard of payers not accepting a W-8 because the I-9 affirmed a “U.S. Citizen” status. To a non-educated HR-type, a “Citizen of the United States of America” is the same thing. They are not going to recognize this as a “nonresident alien” for the purposes of the Federal Income Tax as well. So, it would appear that nothing has been accomplished. I find an I-9 declaring “alien authorized to work” is a much more powerful piece of documentation that would stand strongly in your corner.
So why, in your opinion, are the 4 proffered I-9 choices not acceptable?
Thanks
