Originally published on Forbes.com July 16th, 2014
Donald J. Yeager disavowed his social security number when he turned 18. As a “Fundamentalist Christian”, he believes that being identified by any number, including, if not especially, a social security number, is having the “Mark of the Beast”. The “Mark of the Beast” concept comes from Revelation Chapter 13. The idea is that the Antichrist is going to require the Mark in order for you to “buy or sell” making getting the mark a smart business move in the short run, but in the long run it is not such a good idea, because of what one of the angels is going to do:
And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast,
The notion that your social security number is the Mark of the Beast, while hardly mainstream, does have a good bit of support. Somebody has even created an index of resources on the topic.
Mr. Yeager found that renouncing his social security number had consequences. He applied for an internship with FirstEnergy Generation Corp. When he refused to provide a social security number, the company either refused to hire him or terminated his employment. Mr. Yeager decided to sue FirstEnergy. The decision by the United States District Court Northern District of Ohio was not favorable to him.
Mr. Yeager’s claim was that he was being discriminated against on the basis of religion since FirstEnergy refused to “reasonably accommodate” his “stated religious observance or practice”. He argued that the company could have done so without “undue hardship” in conducting its business.
The Court ruled in favor of FirstEnergy, which seems reasonable, although I found its legal analysis a little on the thin side.
This Court agrees. The IRS requires every employee to have a social security number. And, both the employee and the employer face potential penalties from the IRS for not reporting the employee’s social security number. Though the penalties may be waived for reasonable cause, Plaintiff Yeager has not provided anything to indicate that religious beliefs will be considered reasonable cause. And, that the penalties may be waived does not change the fact that the requirement for employees to have a social FirstEnergy. Under these circumstances, Plaintiff Yeager has failed to plead facts that could support a prima facie case of religious discrimination under Title VII.
Regulation 31.6011(b)-2 (c)(3) provides a procedure for an employer who is required to report a social security number but does not have it for some reason
If employee did not furnish receipt, Form SS-5, or statement. If neither subdivision (i) nor (ii) of this subparagraph is applicable, the employer shall, except as provided in subparagraph (4) of this paragraph, attach to the return a Form SS-5 or statement, signed by the employer, setting forth as fully and clearly as practicable the employee’s full name, his present or last known address, date and place of birth, father’s full name, mother’s full name before marriage, the employee’s sex, and a statement as to whether an application for an account number has previously been filed by the employee and, if so, the date and place of such filing. The employer shall also insert in such Form SS-5 or statement an explanation of why he has not secured from the employee the information referred to in paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this section, and shall insert the word “Employer” as part of his signature.
So it appears that you can, in fact, hire somebody who refuses to give you a social security number. Presumably if the person says that the refusal is religiously based and you refuse to hire him because that makes you think he is a wackadoodle, there might be an argument for religious discrimination.
This is not the first time this issue has been litigated. It went up to the Eighth Circuit in Seaworth v Pearson in 2000 and to the Ninth Circuit in Sutton v Providence St. Joseph Medical Center. In both those cases, it was held that being forced to “violate the law” would be an undue hardship on the employer. It seems though, that what the law requires is for the employer to ask for the number and the regulations provide a procedure for employers who don’t receive it.
I have to say that I have just a tad of sympathy for Mr. Yeager’s view. It is a little disturbing how the social security number has evolved into something of a universal identifier. My fictional hero Repairman Jack didn’t have one much to the chagrin of Gia, the love of his life:
She shook her head. “How can that be? You’ve got to have a social security number. You’ve got to have a bank account, a credit card, a driver’s license. You can’t function without them.”
But Jack was born in 1969. If he were a few years younger, his CPA father would have gotten him one in order to be able to claim a dependency deduction. When I was contemplating the tax issues of JD Salinger, I was rather surprised to find that he was over 30 when he got a social security number, but if you look at income tax returns from the early fifties, you can see that it was not required to file. Salinger, whose only salaried job had been in the military, was not required to get a number until the self-employment tax was instituted. Last night, I had to give the last four digits of my social security number in order to get somebody to help me with my phone.
You can follow me on twitter @peterreillycpa.