I am kind of in the same boat and am facing a brick wall. Right now it is either provide us wth your ssn or no loan.

Have you had any luck or possibly any breakthroughs poldon?

I am not sure whether you are saying that the 30% rule doesn't apply to SS benefits or whether you're saying that they are not taxable if the recepient is NRA. Feel free to clarify. Nonetheless, I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that even though SS benefits may not be ECI they are still taxable. They are US property and therefore subject to all their rules and regulations.

So as a US retiree and SSI recepient you may not have ECI but you are still having benefits/payments originating from US that are subject to its IR Code which will add into your total income.

I cannot prove this with code sections because I haven't done the research, nor will I bother to because it won't ever apply to me, but logic tells me that if it is within their jurisdiction they are going to tax it somehow.

I think that sentence is there to make sure that income that is not connected with trade or business (uncle sam) is taxed at 30%. Other income that comes from the treasury is taxed on a graduated tax rate.

So any foreign corporations doing business in United States are taxed at 30% while any persons (whether artificial or real) that are connected with a trade or business (US Treasury) are taxed on a graduated scale. By that section it looks like that even foreign corportions that are paid out of the US Treasury are taxed at a graduated rate.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

EDIT: Now that I re-read it a few times i think the key is that it says “….there is hereby imposed for each taxable year a tax of 30 percent of the amount received from sources within the United States by a foreign corporation as—…” So it is a tax on amount received and not income received.

The terms in 'quotes' have the meaning defined in USC Title 26 and the USG=US Government, the federal corporation.

I didn't just write a post to argue with you just for the sake of arguing. I posted to argue my point of view or interpretation of the statute you posted after reading Richard Kowalik's book.

My argument was that the human being employed for the USG (US Government) is the actual transferee because the property of USG is transferred to him in the form of pay. By virtue of his contract with the USG he agreed to return a portion of his pay back to its original owner (the USG) in the form of a 'tax'. This in reality is not a tax. By contracting with USG the human (or any fictional entity) makes himself subject to all the contract agreement and rules dictated by USC Title 26.

It is no different than working for a corporation that, among many policies and procedures, has a policy that says: “you must return an x amount back to the corporation depending on your living arrangements, marital status, how many chidren you have etc.”

Therefore, if i understand his book correctly, the only taxpayer is the USG. Humans employed by USG are therefore transferees of its property and have agreed to return it back to its original owner in the amount specified in the rules (USC 26). 26 USC 6902(a) then notices that Secretary must prove that the transferee is liable and not the actual taxpayer. This actually makes sense becuase it is not the USG that is liable for the tax, but by virtue of the agreement (USC title 26) it is the transferee (the one receiving USG property) that is liable for the 'tax' (read kickback) in the form of filing a 'return of income' and returning property back.

I think a few of informed Americans should write to Glenn Beck and make sure he understands what he might be getting into.

I know I will.

They're not tactics. He's just reading the law as it is written and meant to be implemented.

As I just finished saying in another topic, we both know that these statutes don't apply to us. The trillion dollar question is how do you get yourself out of complying with it and not paying for it?

That's what you need to work on. The entities listed after the word person do not include you and cannot include you. They need your consent for you to be subject to it. Sounds simple when we say it, but try explaining it to the common High School educated police officer out there.

I know I didn't really help and I'm sorry. I just want you to think outside the box and try to figure out a way so that this info can work for you. Just knowing it doesn't really do anything except make you angry.