PDA

View Full Version : Get Your Billions Back, America: 2014



JohnnyCash
01-29-15, 10:06 PM
GET YOUR BILLIONS BACK, AMERICA

Yes folks it's tax season, 2014. Big tax refund season for W2 LAWFUL MONEY filers. Open season on the banksters' FRN & tax SCAM.

As taught by David Merrill, and as our experience has shown, it's really a federal income tax on privileged currency. Those of us who don't endorse Federal Reserve credit, don't owe the tax. Since federal reserve notes are the medium of exchange adopted by the United States, there's a presumption that is what you're using and thus owe the tax. To avoid FR currency & end the presumption - you can simply redeem LAWFUL MONEY. And avoid the tax!

Like most American workers - you just got your Form W-2 from Employer (http://www.ctcwarrior.com/W2_2014.jpg). Your employer has been instructed to send a copy of this "information report" to the SSA (shared database with IRS). This Form W2 is full of statutory terms and is to be used in preparing your annual tax return. So let's get started. Apples peaches pumpkin pie, who's not ready holler I?

NOTE: The income tax is sacred ground to the banking cabal. My research reveals all public forums, chatrooms, comment pages, etc. dealing with the TAX are infiltrated & patrolled by bankster minions. If I choose not to respond to your fearmongering, misrepresentations & insanely idiotic comments, you know why. I know they're meant to manage public perception.

ohiofoiarequest
01-30-15, 05:44 AM
Okay so taxpayers leave a couple billion on the table...what's that amount to; 10, 20 fiatscos per man woman child?

Now what about the medicaid and medicare thingy?

Are those type of contributions/payroll check reductions consented to through the supplication of an unrestricted W4 by the employee via the employer? Seems like the W4 is what gives the IRS standing to pursue claims against the "taxpayer" in particular.

Seems like an express waiver of those benefits would be necessary to show lack of consent to this discretionary type of trust for "taxpayer" to have standing to be refunded the medicare/medicaid and social security contributions.

Of course the main nexus is likely back to the endorsement & use of the FRN credits.

Just a thought.

ag maniac
01-30-15, 04:09 PM
Just curious JC, but this sanitized W2 along with maybe another posted earlier shows FICA wages as more than FITW wages.

Why is this? (Anyone?)

JohnnyCash
01-30-15, 05:00 PM
Just curious JC, but this sanitized W2 along with maybe another posted earlier shows FICA wages as more than FITW wages.

Why is this? (Anyone?) ag maniac FTW. Box 1 wages are reduced by employee's contributions to company's fully qualified retirement plan as shown by the code "E" in box 12b next to the amount ($4xxx.xx). I bet you already knew that.

JohnnyCash
01-30-15, 06:11 PM
1 - GATHER YOUR DOCUMENTS

Gather your tax documents together. I keep mine in folders by year. When an envelope marked "Important Tax Document Enclosed" arrives in the mail, into the folder it goes. These annual mailings contain "information reports" like Forms W2, 1099 & 1098, and usually show the amount of reported [federal] income. With few exceptions info reports are due (in recipients hands) by Jan. 31st unless the due date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. It does this year, 2015, so the due date is February 2, 2015. You will also need the total amount of this presumed or reported Title 26 income, was actually redeemed lawful money (http://www.ctcwarrior.com/paycheck_526.jpg).

ag maniac
01-30-15, 07:38 PM
ag maniac FTW. Box 1 wages are reduced by employee's contributions to company's fully qualified retirement plan as shown by the code "E" in box 12b next to the amount ($4xxx.xx). I bet you already knew that.

Yeah, makes sense......I might have known that 10 years ago when I last contributed to a retirement plan.....but today, I'm just a farmer.....so my current retirement plan involves a variety of hand & power tools, a little know-how, & a bit of "McGyver=ing"

:p

JohnnyCash
01-31-15, 03:52 PM
2 - PAPER OR SOFTWARE

You can often find paper tax forms and instructions at the Post Office. You're looking for Form 1040 (neither 1040A nor 1040EZ have Line 21 Other Income). Forms are also available for download here: http://www.irs.gov/uac/Form-1040,-U.S.-Individual-Income-Tax-Return
You can also use tax filing software. Most are free to use, or charge only for state returns. Popular offerings include: H&R Block, TurboTax, TaxAct, TaxSlayer, etc. Even full-featured or deluxe versions can be purchased for anywhere from $10 to $30. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1904319,00.asp

Since we'll be attaching evidence of our demand for LM we won't be using eFile or electronic filing. Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I'm aware, these options do not allow for scanning/submission of user attachments. Even though we won't be efiling, the software allows you to print a paper return for mailing (with attachments). I like using the software as it can find overlooked deductions and reduces the chance of math errors and results in a return more likely to sail through IRS processing. We don't want to submit an invalid return.

JohnnyCash
02-01-15, 12:47 AM
3 - PREPARE YOUR MIND

It helps to get in the proper mindset. "It is the voluntary use of private credit which imposes upon the user the quasi contractual or implied obligation to make a return of income (http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/convincing.html)." We're dealing with private law, private contract. A private company has conned America into using its stuff and now wants payment for use. "You used our stuff now you gotta pay the piper" - that's where they're coming from. Usage fee. Excise tax. Income tax. That's the presumption. What private company setup this scam? The FEDERAL RESERVE.

So where are you coming from? I know the scam [the quatlosers protect]. I don't endorse private credit. I redeem lawful money. Therefore the 1040 return of income offers a chance to correct or rebut the erroneous presumption that I'm using FRNs; to correct the record. To show I haven't been duped.

Chex
02-01-15, 03:02 PM
Prepare Your Mind

2228

ag maniac
02-01-15, 04:04 PM
Interesting you would post that pic of those stacks of "ones" Chex.

I seem to recall on Jaro's Sovereign Warriors that I read the following interesting fact:

Of all the FRN's in [current] circulation, only the "One" has a box around "Federal Reserve Note" (obverse, top center).

Jaro's take on this was that during the possible coming currency reset, say for example everybody takes a 90% haircut on their FRN/electronic digits holdings ($100 bill gets you "10 new dollars"), those with "singles" might be able to trade "dollar for dollar".

BLBereans
02-01-15, 04:11 PM
Who is wealthier...

A man with a stack of hundreds or a man with only one "1 dollar bill".

ag maniac
02-01-15, 08:27 PM
Who is wealthier...

A man with a stack of hundreds or a man with only one "1 dollar bill".

....probably a guy w/ a cache of $5 stamps.....trade 'em anywhere in the world @ a post office (UPU) for the local currency

JohnnyCash
02-03-15, 04:54 AM
4 - PERSONAL INFO / NAME

OK! Let's start filing. For this demo, I'll be using the TaxACT Online free edition http://www.taxact.com/taxes-online/free-online-tax.asp
We begin with Personal info. You will see entries for

First name:
Middle initial:
Last name:
Social security number:
Date of birth (mm/dd/yyyy):
Occupation:

Whose NAME? Taxpayer name. It's important to use the NAME linked to the SSN. As suitors we know our True Name is different than this IT, LEGAL, PERSON, TAXPAYER, TRUST NAME. But we'll be making use of this NAME for our benefit, to obtain a refund. If there's any question about which name to use, I suggest an exact match with the SS card NAME - the NAME on file with the SSA. Discrepancies will likely slow IRS processing while an inquiry is sent. Although my experience shows including Middle initial is optional. TaxACT includes entries for DATE OF BIRTH & OCCUPATION that are optional but may help the software with certain calculations. Then you have same entries for Spouse, for you to add if it applies.

JohnnyCash
02-03-15, 09:06 PM
5 - PERSONAL INFO / FILING STATUS

Blind or Disabled questions - not as blind as I used to be.

Address & Telephone number - "Providing the IRS with your daytime phone number may help speed the processing of your return."

State of Residence - where does Taxpayer/Person reside?

Dependent Information - who knew kids were worth so much?

Filing Status - Select your appropriate filing status. Married filing joint should yield maximum refund for us (none of my LM income will be entered). The beauty of using software is the ability to go back and try a different status to see what works best.


Single
Married filing joint (even if only one had income)
Married filing separately
Head of household
Qualifying widow(er) with dependent child

Health Insurance - "The Affordable Care Act requires U.S. citizens and legal residents to have qualified health insurance for all of 2014. Those without qualified coverage may be required to pay a penalty." - the ACA is just another social control scam, and here taxpayers are penalized for not playing along.

Presidential Election Campaign Fund - don't even get me started

Estimated Tax Payments - Yes or No?

Life Events - Learn more about 19 topics ranging from "Marriage & divorce" to "Foreign Nationals"

Chex
02-04-15, 05:01 PM
Interesting you would post that pic of those stacks of "ones".

LOL Texas Man Arrested After Attempt To Pay Taxes With Dollar Bills

A Wichita Falls man made news last week when he was arrested while trying to pay his property taxes.

Only there’s a little bit more to the story than that. The 27-year old Texan, Timothy Andrew Norris, arrived in person at the Wichita County Courthouse to pay his $600 property tax with individual dollar bills – only there was a twist. Or, er, a fold. Norris had allegedly folded each bill so tightly that it “required tax office personnel approximately six minutes to unfold each bill.”

If you’re doing the math, that means that it would take 3,600 minutes – or 60 hours, longer than a work week – to unfold the bills.

More here > http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2015/02/03/texas-man-arrested-after-attempt-to-pay-taxes-with-dollar-bills/

What does the dollar bill represent to Timothy Andrew Norris or does he know something?

JohnnyCash
02-05-15, 03:06 AM
Trust Law > http://www.forbes.com/sites/jayadkisson/2015/01/26/a-short-history-of-asset-protection-trust-law

Michael Joseph
02-05-15, 04:01 AM
Trust Law > http://www.forbes.com/sites/jayadkisson/2015/01/26/a-short-history-of-asset-protection-trust-law

if you can find the writings of Byron BEERS - which are very difficult these days to find, I highly recommend you read all of them. You won't be disappointed. Grab his 11 free booklets and read them all.

Here's a study I prepared years ago - you will notice it blends both Civil Law and Common Law concepts: 2235

Shalom,
Michael Joseph

JohnnyCash
02-05-15, 03:01 PM
Trust Law > http://www.forbes.com/sites/jayadkisson/2015/01/26/a-short-history-of-asset-protection-trust-lawJay, you have a typo on page 2:


"Bogert, G.T., Trusts § 40, at pp. 155-56, (6th ed. 1987). In 1987, this was this the majority, if not the only view of self-settled spendthrift trusts, being that spendthrift provision was inoperable to protect the beneficial interest of the settlor against her creditors. This case was largely embodied in the various state statutes of which California Probate Code § 15304 is typical:"

MJ, I am downloading & reading now. Thank You!

JohnnyCash
02-06-15, 06:02 PM
6 - INCOME

Alrighty then, now we get to the income section of our Lawful Money tax return. In TaxACT (http://www.taxact.com/taxes-online/free-online-tax.asp), we enter income info in the Federal Q&A tab. This is appropriate considering this filing is about private, privileged, or Federal [Reserve] income - a subset of all income. TaxACT uses a Question&Answer approach. I use the Quick Entry option to enter info from the paper Form W-2 (http://www.ctcwarrior.com/W2_2014.jpg), inputting Box 1 amount into Box 1 of the program and so forth. Continue answering & entering all income* reported to you on "information reports" like W2, 1099-INT, 1099-R, etc.

Finally we get to Other Income - Miscellaneous and here you will enter your total redeemed lawful money for the year, as a negative amount. This is a simple total of LM amounts/checks either cashed or deposited (http://www.ctcwarrior.com/paycheck_526.jpg). In the description I put: Demand for Lawful Money 12 USC 411. As you enter info TaxACT shows your expected refund in the upper right. Here's a screenshot: http://www.ctcwarrior.com/taxACT_income.JPG
When totaling your LM here for inclusion as Line 21 Other Income, it's important not to include any redeemed Lawful Money that was not also income on the lines above.

*NOTE: In years past I have not included as income amounts reported on Form 1099-MISC (http://www.jesse2012.com/my109912.jpg) (because it was all redeemed lawful money) and had no problems afterward. This may also work for you.

JohnnyCash
02-07-15, 03:50 AM
6 - INCOME questions answered

Q: How do I get my SS & Medicare taxes back?
A: There is no provision on the tax return for that. While Social Security & Medicare are legitimate income taxes (based on wages) they're best thought of as insurance premiums - you don't get your premiums back if you don't make a car insurance claim. So as a W4 worker the filer doesn't get his/her SS & Medicare withholding back. What you may find however, as we did, that because of your redeemed LM negative, your refund ($6xxx) has grown so large as to overtake the FITW amount ($33xx). It's like getting a good portion of your SS & MCare taxes back.

To quit paying SS & Medicare taxes altogether, look to end your W4 "employment."

JohnnyCash
02-07-15, 04:21 PM
6 - INCOME questions answered

Q: What if I sold my motorbike for $5000 cash last year. Where on the 1040 do I enter that?

A: Are you a bankster minion or just under their conditioning/spell? Srsly, can cash be lawful money? Yes, it can be US notes in the form of FRNs. And since there's no federal report of it to be corrected/rebutted - there's no need to include it.
Next.

JohnnyCash
02-07-15, 06:49 PM
Q: I took $15,000 out of my retirement plan last November and bought silver with it, mainly because I didn't feel it was safe there. I elected not to have federal tax withheld (http://www.ctcwarrior.com/Fidelity.jpg) and I wrote "redeemed lawful money per 12 U.S.C. 411" on the back of the $15k Fidelity check before depositing. Do I owe tax on this? I'm 47 years old.

JohnnyCash
02-08-15, 03:46 AM
A: Congrats on having the wisdom & forethought to protect your wealth and move it out of the banksters' reach. Since you get favorable (tax-free) treatment when contributing to these statutory federal retirement plans (IRAs, 401ks, etc) it's quite possible you will owe a 10% early-distribution penalty since you're under age 59.5. These withdrawals are generally reported to you (& the IRS) on Form 1099-R and Box 7 will show a Distribution code (https://www.taxslayer.com/support/KnowledgebaseArticle188.aspx?language=1). Simply follow the directions in TaxACT, entering the 1099-R amounts & codes to see what you will owe.

However, there are about a dozen exceptions under which the penalty may be waived. For example, if you used the distribution funds to pay for disability, certain medical expenses, tax levies, first home purchases, and so forth then no 10% tax is due. Do an internet search to learn more and make sure the tax software is not taxing your early distribution if, in fact, you have an exception to the 10% penalty.

Regardless of the 10% penalty, your early plan withdrawal will not increase your AGI (adjusted gross income) since you'll be including the $15,000 as a negative on Line 21 - Other Income as it was redeemed Lawful Money. Thanks for helping us Abolish the Fed.

JohnnyCash
02-09-15, 02:58 AM
Q: I sold stuff online last year and just received a 1099-K showing over $17,000 income from the card merchant. All those online receipts landed in my LM bank account where my signature agreement has the "all transactions demanded in Lawful Money pursuant to 12 USC 411 (http://jesse2012.com//BAsigncard.jpg)" language on file. How to account for this $17k?

JohnnyCash
02-09-15, 04:23 AM
A: Great! You are to report only Taxable Income and it depends entirely upon your right to be heard, and the law. Three possibilities come to mind:


1- Fill out Schedule C like your online store was a business, with the profit on Line 12 Business Income, then include that same profit (as a negative) on Line 21
2- Put the entire $17k on Line 12 and also include it (as a negative) on Line 21.
3- Ignore it. Don't even enter it since the amount was all redeemed lawful money and the 1099K report functions as mere 3rd-party hearsay (and a bit of social conditioning).

None of these will increase your AGI. IMHO all would work. Your choice.

JohnnyCash
02-10-15, 03:40 AM
Q: Posting redacted documents online is no proof of success nor that your "lawful money" filings will continue to get big refunds. Even if you beat the IRS so far, aren't you afraid they'll come after you with a big phat 8-year bill along with interest & penalties? Some of us in the freedom movement have IRS battle scars decades old and here you just waltz in and announce "Oh I got a rubber stamp silver bullet and it's as easy as 1-2-3." Have you no respect for us? I think you have an under-developed sense of fear of the IRS.
A: Your question isn't income-related but I'll answer. Yes, I know online documents of success don't constitute proof, nor are they admissible evidence. But they are data points for the reader to consider - real or fake? Seeker or agent? I admit a simple restricted endorsement on the back of your paycheck does seem "easy" - perhaps even too easy when I first encountered it. But think of it this way - on the off chance it's a winner, wouldn't you wish you'd tried it? If someone told you about bitcoin when it was a $1 (they did (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?36-Bitcoin-digital-currency-reaches-dollar-parity)) and said it'd go to $100 (it did (http://www.bitstamp.net/)) wouldn't you wish you bought a few?

And then factor in that no other theory provides such a complete answer to everything tax-related. It accounts for all the missing pieces:

national currency issuance was taxed, why would they stop?
why the tax code never defines "income"
why the code is so convoluted & uses so many custom-defined terms
why those who endorse Fed Reserve currency are convicted
why the law makes a distinction between FRNs & Lawful Money
why the law still allows redemption in LM
why the tax return is voluntary
why you have a right to be heard
why no lawful money cases adjudicated
why they can't bring proof-of-claim
why the disinfo agents badmouth it (War by Propaganda)

And that's just barely scratching the surface. All the data points fit together perfectly. It's the unified field theory of taxation.

As for my "under-developed sense of fear of the IRS" - the suitors helped me overcome it. When you use the law as written there is no fear. It's the infiltrators job to keep the fear alive & re-kindle it when it dies. And so far your attempts have been woefully inadequate. The IRS fears me. Next.

ag maniac
02-10-15, 02:01 PM
...... The IRS fears me. ......


!!


Touché.....

JohnnyCash
02-11-15, 05:27 AM
6 - INCOME

OK let's finish our return & get it filed before the Feds run out of $ and declare the Bankers Holiday. Finish up the INCOME section (http://www.ctcwarrior.com/taxACT_income.JPG) listing all reported income (or, all the reported income you're comfortable listing). Don't overlook bank interest which will be reported on Form 1099-INT. Investment income will likely show up on Form 1099-DIV. If you paid mortgage interest last year it will be reported on Form 1098, and that means: they presume you paid the interest with Federal Reserve currency (would look odd if you had only $5000 income and paid $11000 in mortgage interest).

At the end of the section you get to Other Income - Miscellaneous and it's here you enter total redeemed Lawful Money for the year, as a negative amount. A simple total of LM amounts/checks either cashed or deposited. But once again, no more LM than was listed on income lines above. In the description I put: Demand for Lawful Money 12 USC 411. This will create a page titled Other Income - Supporting Details for Form 1040, Line 21 for you to file, like this ...
2255

JohnnyCash
02-12-15, 03:36 AM
7 - DEDUCTIONS

Next we're asked questions about Deductions, as shown on the list below. Then you'll be asked if you wish to Itemize or take the Standard Deduction. This year (2014), the standard deduction rises to $6,200 for single & married taxpayers filing separately. The standard deduction is $12,400 for married couples filing jointly and $9,100 for heads of household. We took the standard deduction but if you paid large amounts on medical, charities, interest, etc., then try the Itemized deduction - it may give a better refund.


Educator expenses
Certain business expenses of reservists
Health savings account deduction
Moving expenses
Deductible part of self-employment tax
Self-employed SEP, SIMPLE, qualified plans
Self-employment health insurance deduction
Penalty on early withdrawal of savings
Alimony paid
IRA deduction
Student loan interest deduction
Tuition and fees deduction
Domestic production activities deduction
Other miscellaneous deductions
Standard deduction
Exemption allowance
Itemized deduction - Medical/dental expenses
Itemized deduction - Taxes you paid
Itemized deduction - Interest you paid
Itemized deduction - Gifts to charity
Itemized deduction - Casualty and theft loss
Itemized deduction - Miscellaneous
Itemized deduction - Other miscellaneous

JohnnyCash
02-13-15, 06:14 AM
8 - CREDITS

Next section of the Federal Q&A tab are the Credits. The program will ask questions about various credits you might be eligible for, as listed below. We usually get a few of these Credits. The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is available to lower income filers. For example, married filing jointly with an AGI less than $52,427 qualifies for an EITC of up to $6143. The maximum Earned Income Credit for individual filers this year is $496. http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/EITC-Income-Limits,-Maximum-Credit--Amounts-and-Tax-Law-Updates
Illegal aliens can file returns (for the past 3 years) and get the EITC returned as a refund, once they obtain a SSN: http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1429-Free-Money-Illegals-who-didn%E2%80%99t-pay-taxes-get-IRS-refunds

NOTE that as you go through, TaxACT occasionally offers various features & upgrades at additional cost. I answer "No" or "Skip" to these and find the free software does a great job.


Foreign tax credit
Child and dependent care expenses
Education credits
Retirement savings contributions credit
Net premium tax credit
Child tax credit
Residential energy credits
Other credits
Federal income tax withheld
Estimated tax payments/prior year applied
Earned income credit
Additional child tax credit
American opportunity credit
Amount paid with extension
Excess social security and tier I RRTA:
Fuel tax credit
Other payments

JohnnyCash
02-13-15, 07:49 PM
9 - TAXES

Next is the Taxes Examiner questions (summarized below) to determine if you're liable for any other odd taxes. Of interest here is the Self-employment tax. If you have income from "self-employment" then you'll owe SS & Medicare taxes on it so it's advantageous to avoid having such "income."


Alternative minimum tax
Excess advance premium tax credit repayment
Self-employment tax
Unreported social security and Medicare tax
Additional tax on qualified plans
Taxes for household employees
Repayment of first-time homebuyer credit
Individual shared responsibility payment
Additional Medicare tax
Net investment income tax
Other taxes

JohnnyCash
02-15-15, 05:43 PM
We have some reports of TaxACT not presenting the "Student Status" and "Can you be claimed as a dependent on someone else's return?" questions under the Basic Info tab in the "Personal Info" area. May be a glitch in the program. If you experience this, go Back to the first screen in this section and remove the "Date of Birth" entry; should fix it.

JohnnyCash
02-16-15, 05:26 AM
10 - Miscellaneous Examiner

The final Federal Q&A section is Miscellaneous. Most folks have no reason to deal with anything here. But take a look and see if anything applies.


Lump-sum payment of social security benefits
Excess farm loss
2015 estimated tax payments
Underpayment penalty
Reduction of tax attributes due to discharge of indebtedness (Form 982)
Claim for a refund due a deceased person (Form 1310)
Multiple support declaration for claiming a dependent
Release/Revocation of release of claim to an exemption
Injured spouse relief
IRS installment payment plan request
Third party designee
In care of (To have your refund sent in care of another person)
Combat zone
Disaster designation

JohnnyCash
02-21-15, 01:36 AM
11 - Summary

Finishing the Miscellaneous Examiner will bring you to the Summary section as show below.
Click "Continue" if everything looks good here. That will bring you to State Q&A. TaxACT automatically transfers your federal info to your state forms. Most state returns rely on Federal return data and are fairly simple to do once the Federal return is complete. Since we're mainly concerned with Federal here in this demo, we'll skip the State Q&A for now and click the Review tab.

JohnnyCash
02-21-15, 05:04 PM
12 - Review

Taking a few minutes to review your return now can save you time and hassles later. TaxACT Alerts review your tax return and identify any missing or incorrect information. You will also be alerted to possible tax saving opportunities you may have missed. It'll try to sell you on TaxACT Deluxe, which I declined. Three types of Alerts:

Red Alert - The message will identify information which is incomplete or inconsistent. If left uncorrected, the subject of a Red Alert will prevent calculations from being completed or may result in post filing inquiries by the IRS or State agency.
Yellow Alert - The message will identify potential problems or prompt you for additional actions required on your part.
Green Alert - The message will identify opportunities for potential tax savings. These messages are for your information and consideration.

I ran all alerts. It may find things ranging from missing or inappropriate numbers to messages like: "Explanation: Contribution to an IRA - Looking for ways to lower your tax? Taxpayer is eligible to contribute up to $6,500 to an Individual Retirement Arrangement (IRA). IRA's are a great way to .. blah blah blah"
Alerts Completed

I said "No Thanks" to the Tax Audit Defense

Finalizing Your Return - Are you interested in seeing all of your payment and refund options? YES or NO? YES brings you to ...

Consent to Use Form

We want to show all your eligible refund methods or payment options. The IRS requires that you must give consent to see all options that we offer.
I authorize TaxACT to use the information I've entered while preparing my 2014 tax return(s) to determine whether I qualify for services to pay for my tax preparation fees from my refund amount or receive my refund on a prepaid card.

NO (what I do) will bring you to:

Prior Year Comparison
- Comparing this year's return to last year's return is a great way to find possible errors. Differences could result from an incorrect entry or overlooked information that needs attention. If you would like to complete the comparison, you'll need to have your 2013 tax return available to provide 2013 information and to help reconcile any differences. I said No.

Then you get some HealthWatch 2015 thing about ACA. "Continue" ... Copy of your return? I said No Thanks (at $8.99 I know how to use a copier)

salsero
02-23-15, 01:35 AM
9 - TAXES

Next is the Taxes Examiner questions (summarized below) to determine if you're liable for any other odd taxes. Of interest here is the Self-employment tax. If you have income from "self-employment" then you'll owe SS & Medicare taxes on it so it's advantageous to avoid having such "income."


Alternative minimum tax
Excess advance premium tax credit repayment
Self-employment tax
Unreported social security and Medicare tax
Additional tax on qualified plans
Taxes for household employees
Repayment of first-time homebuyer credit
Individual shared responsibility payment
Additional Medicare tax
Net investment income tax
Other taxes

For clarification, regardless of the LM demand or not on all checks received making up the entire income from Self-Employment minus deductions, Schedule SE is required and one must pay SS and Medicare taxes? The LM demand can not provide any reduction with FICA or Medicare and SS taxes? The LM demand reduction is only for federal income taxes. Also what is your recommendation, "to avoid having such self-employment income"? thanks

Noah
02-24-15, 05:37 PM
Got my state refund today! Don't think I ever got one this early. Did federal return on paper along with redeemed lawful money evidence and waiting on that. State offers a free e-File.gov so I started it but noticed it would not allow a negative amount for Other Income lawful money, so decided to just not include my LM receipts as income. Worked great.

Salsero, once I began redeeming lawful money i realized it changed the nature of my income. It wasn't federal income anymore, it wasn't "self-employment" income anymore and did not need to be included on tax return. Redeeming LM also changed my own nature but that's a whole nother story.

TruthBearer
02-27-15, 06:54 PM
My sister just got her Fed refund - in 7 days. After e-File. Nice to see what IRS Commissioner Koskiken warned of did not happen.
"Everybody's return will get processed," Koskinen said, according to AP. "But people have gotten very used to being able to file their return and quickly getting a refund. This year we may not have the resources, the people to provide refunds as quickly as we have in the past." http://rt.com/usa/216087-irs-tax-refund-delays/

Noah
03-01-15, 11:38 PM
If you have a college age child, Taxact will ask "Do you want to complete the FAFSA Tax Summary Worksheet?"
I recommend doing this because it helps you complete the online application at http://FAFSA.gov

It's under the Review tab, then College Student Financial Aid. After filing I went back into the Taxact return to complete this.

stoneFree
03-02-15, 08:42 PM
Checked it out Noah and you are correct

the FAFSA site has a box: "student's Social Security Number" with a link next to it From a Freely Associated State?
which brings up this:

2309

allodial
03-02-15, 11:58 PM
666? They have a sense of 'humor' no doubt?

edward222
03-05-15, 06:31 AM
For those who still have no idea about the form W-2, wage and tax statement,

This is what IRS said:

Every employer engaged in a trade or business who pays remuneration, including noncash payments of $600 or more for the year (all amounts if any income, social security, or Medicare tax was withheld) for services performed by an employee must file a Form W-2 for each employee (even if the employee is related to the employer) from whom:
Income, social security, or Medicare tax was withheld.
Income tax would have been withheld if the employee had claimed no more than one withholding allowance or had not claimed exemption from withholding on Form W-4, Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate.

Hope this also helps.

Chex
03-05-15, 03:40 PM
the form W-2, wage and tax statement,This is what IRS said: engaged in a trade or business who pays remuneration, including noncash payments of $600 or more for the year (all amounts if any income, social security, or Medicare tax was withheld) for services performed by an employee must file a Form W-2 for each employee (even if the employee is related to the employer) from whom: income, social security, or Medicare tax was withheld.
Income tax would have been withheld if the employee had claimed no more than one withholding allowance or had not claimed exemption from withholding on Form W-4, Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate. Hope this also helps.

People who do not have their taxes paid for them by their employer are required to keep up with their won tax debt. It must be reported yearly to the IRS and any taxes owed paid. It isn't illegal to pay in cash, just more hassle for the employee. (http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/403227-employers-paying-cash-when-is-it-illegal/?p=4061143)


If you can make a notice and demand with no questions asked and have it honored like this, (http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/esrvc-srvce/tx/bsnss/gsthstrgstry/menu-eng.html) The CRA is not responsible for losses or damages that result from your use of the GST/HST Registry, this includes etc. etc. etc. …… this would be great.


Those who have followed the series Mad Men probably remember a number of scenes when Roger Sterling gave someone a wad of cash to do a job for him. It’s probably safe to assume that money wasn’t reported to the IRS. Although it is not illegal to pay employees and contractors in cash, there are a variety of downfalls associated with this business practice. Most importantly, it complicates the process of paying an accurate amount of payroll taxes. - See more at: (http://blog.surepayroll.com/is-it-illegal-to-pay-employees-cash/#sthash.Gkl8eLOo.dpuf)

stoneFree
03-06-15, 10:05 PM
Fortunately I'm no employer engaged in a trade or business and can ignore all that.
You can check the status of your lawful money tax refund here http://irs.gov/Refunds

stoneFree
03-13-15, 03:02 AM
What about signing the tax return ... "Under penalties of perjury?" I have seen them signed:


Legal Name
True Name
True Name dba Legal Name

allodial
03-13-15, 07:41 AM
What about signing the tax return ... "Under penalties of perjury?" I have seen them signed:


Legal Name
True Name
True Name dba Legal Name

Or "True Name for Legal Name"? Or "True Name for the parties"?

stoneFree
03-13-15, 01:50 PM
Did you put a All Rights Reserved under your signature?

allodial
03-13-15, 02:24 PM
One can reserve all rights and immunities too, if applicable.

stoneFree
03-13-15, 02:30 PM
One can reserve all rights and immunities too, if applicable.Thanks for the intel. I just signed it True Name

David Neil
03-16-15, 01:51 PM
It's not a billion, but I just went to irs.gov/refund and my refund was approved. Of course I am now waiting for the funds to appear in the bank before I am satisfied that all is well but I can confess to you all my anxiety of confronting the fearful IRS/Fed and the satisfaction I am beginning to enjoy as I learn who I am and where I stand among men and women.

David Merrill
03-16-15, 02:39 PM
Running the Fed is a great legacy not only for yourself but for your neighbor and children too!

stoneFree
03-17-15, 02:45 PM
Amen. Three types of Tax Transcripts are available online directly from the IRS http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/Get-Transcript

Return Transcripts - show most line items from your tax return (Form 1040, 1040A or 1040EZ) as it was originally filed, including any accompanying forms and schedules.

Account Transcripts - provide any adjustments either you or we made after you filed your return.

Wage and Income Transcripts - show data from information returns, such as W-2s, 1099s and 1098s, reported to the IRS.

stoneFree
03-19-15, 03:48 PM
Someone checking on the status of their refund saw this. Not sure why.

2375

stoneFree
03-20-15, 12:01 PM
Turns out one of the filers has 4 names, First Second Third Fourth, while the tax return has just 3 name slots - First Middle Last. Looks like that was enough to confuse the IRS computer; Name - SSN mismatch.

Michael Joseph
03-20-15, 07:23 PM
Turns out one of the filers has 4 names, First Second Third Fourth, while the tax return has just 3 name slots - First Middle Last. Looks like that was enough to confuse the IRS computer; Name - SSN mismatch.

Computers - the enslavers of mankind.

stoneFree
03-30-15, 12:04 AM
Reminder that tax returns are due Wednesday, April 15th, 2015.
And chicken fries (http://www.bk.com/menu-item/chicken-fries) are back.

2443

stoneFree
03-31-15, 11:39 PM
1. Math miscalculations
Use tax software and you won't have errors.

2. Computation errors
see above.

3. Misspelled or different names
The IRS is all about numbers, but words -- specifically names -- are important, too. When the names of a taxpayer, his or her spouse or their children don't match the tax identification number that the Social Security Administration has on record, that difference will cause the IRS to kick out or slow down processing of the tax return.

4. Direct deposit dangers
A wrong account or routing number could cause you to lose your refund entirely.

5. Additional income
Did you have a side job this year? Paid in lawful money? If so, you're golden. As a contractor making lawful money do you really have statutory income even if you received a Form 1099-MISC detailing the extra earnings?

6. Filing status errors
Make sure you choose the correct filing status for your situation. You have 5 options, and each could make a difference in your ultimate tax bill/refund.

7. Social Security number oversights
Your tax ID number is crucial because there are so many transactions -- income statements, savings account interest, retirement plan contributions -- keyed to this number.

8. Complete charitable contributions

9. Signature required
Sign and date your return. The IRS won't process it if it's missing a John Hancock, and that means on e-filed returns, too. Taxpayers filing electronically must sign the return electronically using a personal identification number, or PIN. To verify your identity, you'll have to provide the PIN you used last year or your adjusted gross income from your previous year's tax return.

10. Missing the deadline
Millions of filers put off filing until the very last minute. That's OK as long as your mailed paper return is postmarked by April 15.

Read more: http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/10-common-tax-filing-mistakes-to-avoid-1.aspx

stoneFree
04-02-15, 01:37 AM
IRS Refund in bitcoins?

Just found out that Turbo Tax filers can get an extra 10% by electing to receive their refund in Amazon gift cards. Jane then converted her gift cards into bitcoins at 3% below market at Purse (https://app.purse.io/?_r=D4eafr). Talk about staying out of the Federal Reserve Districts & Cities!

https://medium.com/@PurseIO/10-use-cases-for-bitcoin-c6b7182aa1b9

Jane is an accountant in New York. Like most Americans, she’s looking forward to her tax refund. She’s interested in diversifying her portfolio which mostly consists of US equities, commodities, and bonds. This year, she turned her federal tax refund into a bitcoin investment.

Like last year, she filed through Turbo Tax to get an extra 10% by electing to receive Amazon gift cards. She converted her gift cards into bitcoins through Purse patiently and averaged 7% premiums.

While the average premium on Purse for bitcoins is ~20%, there are often orders with lower premiums available for VIP buyers. Jane got verified, accepted Amazon gift cards for her refund, and converted it to bitcoin for 3% below market price.

GratefulDave
04-06-15, 04:39 PM
I am very grateful for all the useful information everyone has posted in this site to help me so far.

Last year I filed demanding lawful money for the latter half of 2013 and there was no problem, in fact they corrected a math mistake on line 32 AGI and sent the 2013 return with this adjustment. This year I filed for a full year 2014 on all paychecks and also 1099 from 401K. The Net AGI turned out to be negative amount because a very small amount of the money withdrawn from the 401K in 2014 was put in there with after tax dollars so it was not included in 1099 from 401k bank. Also since I am not yet 59, I added the 10% tax penalty on line 59 for the 401k dispersal. Other than these numbers, the documentation and schedule for line 21 was the same as my 2013 return. I received the notice over the weekend with absolutely no explanation on what was "frivolous" and I have 1 month to reply. I appreciate any and all comments on what the IRS may be considering as "frivolous" with this 2014 return.

Also, any comments on how a d4l demand could affect the 10% penalty on the 401k early disbursement.

David Neil
04-07-15, 01:35 AM
After receiving my refund via direct deposit, I was dreading the letter from IRS telling me that "XYZ" was wrong and I had some explaining to do. The letter from IRS arrived the other day. I quickly opened it to see the bad news. sure enough there was an error in calculations. But the error turned out to be not related to Lawful Money Redemption but some other area. It lowered my calculated refund by about $100. My lawful money return stood!!;)

The letter said that if I agreed with the calculation to do nothing. I am wondering should I actually send them notice that I agree in full to their calculations, thus cementing the validity of my deduction of Lawful Money?

ag maniac
04-07-15, 03:07 AM
Don't be so quick to jump into that wet cement.

What "other area"?

And why might this other area not also include your demands for "lawful money and full discharge on all transactions" ?

David Neil
04-08-15, 12:10 AM
I did not start redeeming until March so I guess that amount came from un-redeemed income

GratefulDave
04-08-15, 01:21 AM
Thank you JohnnyCash for your posts on how to fill out line 21. I received a "frivoulous" return notice from the IRS on my second year of filing because I overstated the demand for lawful money which put my AGI in a negative position. I am going to file amended 1040 with lesser amount on line 21. Will keep forum posted on how this goes. Thank all of you.

ag maniac
04-08-15, 02:22 PM
Well, my point here is don't guess

Be sure of what you've done & stand by it.....or.....be sure you've made a mistake on that return.

Has IRS justified the $100 discrepancy descriptively....or is that number just thrown out there to create a doubt in your mind as to your Lawful Money return.....i.e. an offer to recontract?

Anyone else wanna pipe in ?

David Neil
04-09-15, 01:17 AM
You are quite right about guessing. I was truly overwhelmed with my refund, however. It was VERY large and 100 was nothing and I was just thankful that Lawful Money redemption worked without question, this was my first return. I have taken the time to actually read the IRS letter. The error was my mistake. On line 65 I added 100 to the amount of tax I paid in for some 1099 work. They corrected and therein lay the issue. I am still waiting for a very large refund from the state.

ag maniac
04-09-15, 02:53 AM
Well, good on you David Neil !!

Durn tootin' that LM return works !!!!!!


Thank you David Merrill et al !!

David Neil
05-28-15, 11:52 PM
Looks like the Oregon Revenue Dept. is going to gum up the works. Even though the Oregon Income Tax is predicated on the your taxable income from the Federal Return, they are questioning Lawful Money deduction I claimed on line 21 of the 1040. Just got off the phone with them. I explained to them what it was but of course they need to investigate. I put this return in in early Feb. and they have never sent me anything asking for more information. I can't believe this is the first LM return they have received and they need to investigate. Anyone ever file in Oregon?

David Neil
05-29-15, 08:39 PM
Oregon has "disallowed" my lawful money reduction. They are asking for quotes for the IRS code which shows that lawful money is deductible. Are there any specifics that someone can guide me to?

Brian
05-29-15, 11:52 PM
Oregon has "disallowed" my lawful money reduction. They are asking for quotes for the IRS code which shows that lawful money is deductible. Are there any specifics that someone can guide me to?

"From its earliest days, the Supreme Court has indicated that direct taxes include capitations and real property taxes at a minimum.24
The Court has also suggested that other types of taxes might be considered direct,25 although the Court did not find any such examples 26 until the
Pollock case in 1895."

Footnote 26: "26 See Hylton, 3 U.S. at 175 (upholding unapportioned tax on carriages); Pacific Insurance Co. v. Soule, 74 U.S. 433
(1869) (upholding tax on the business of insurance); Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. 533 (1869) (upholding tax on bank
notes); Scholey v. Rew, 90 U.S. 331 (1875) (upholding inheritance tax); Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881)
(upholding income tax)."

From: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40725.pdf

Tell them your time given to your employer was paid in money issued directly from the U.S. Treasury and not in bank credit issued by a bank! Veazie Bank v. Fenno!

When your time is paid in money issued under article 1 section 8 clause 2 (USN's) or 5 (coin) it is subject to the direct tax clauses.

When your time is discharged with bank credit issued by any bank operating under the federal reserve act it is subject to the excise tax or duty on contracts, on income upheld in Springer and explained in Veazie Bank.

David Merrill
05-30-15, 12:34 AM
Oregon has "disallowed" my lawful money reduction. They are asking for quotes for the IRS code which shows that lawful money is deductible. Are there any specifics that someone can guide me to?


This is interesting - the approach. Can you sanitize the letter and scan it for us?

doug555
05-30-15, 02:15 AM
Oregon has "disallowed" my lawful money reduction. They are asking for quotes for the IRS code which shows that lawful money is deductible. Are there any specifics that someone can guide me to?

Please provide the redacted letter for us. It is important to know the exact wording of this challenge.

IMO, there is NO "deduction" for LM in the IRC.

Why?

Because the entire IRC only applies to FRNs - private credit of the FRS - as incurred by the usage of same.

The IRS rightly only allows "deductions" for FRN usage. "Deduction" is a FRN-based term, IMO. DON'T USE IT!

LM amounts received are "non-income", that is, amounts that are not to be included in the FRN-based term called "income". This is why Line 21 of the 1040 is used to "reduce" the FRN-based "income" amount.

Let me refer you to David Merrill's article "Public Money vs Private Credit (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8BdR0w2oZY_VWhWMGl4RWtpT2s/view?usp=sharing)".

Notice in particular David's insightful statements below:

On page 1 of 4:
"Our federal personal income tax is not really a tax in the ordinary sense of the word but rather a burden or obligation which the taxpayer voluntarily assumes, and the burden of the tax falls upon those who voluntarily use private credit. Simply stated, the tax imposed is a charge or fee upon the use of private credit where the amount of private credit used measures the pecuniary obligation.



On page 2 of 4:
A Taxpayer is allowed to claim a $1000 personal deduction when filing his return. The average taxpayer in the course of a year uses United States coins in vending machines, parking meters, small change, etc, and this public money must be deducted when computing the charge for using private credit.

Let me also refer you to http://lawfulmoney.blogspot.com/p/usn-not-taxable.html (http://lawfulmoney.blogspot.com/p/usn-not-taxable.html) which illustrates that instruments "employed by the government [17 U.S. 316, 437] of the Union to carry its powers into execution" are not taxable.

The US Supreme Court, in M'CULLOCH v. STATE, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) at 17 U.S. 316, 476, states that "imposing a tax on the Bank of the United States, is unconstitutional and void."

And further, it states that "a tax on the operation of an instrument employed by the government [17 U.S. 316, 437] of the Union to carry its powers into execution. Such a tax must be unconstitutional."


M'CULLOCH v. STATE, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) at 17 U.S. 316 (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsupreme.justia.com%2Fcases%2Ffede ral%2Fus%2F17%2F316%2Fcase.html&ei=D83KU7mTHtetyAT3jYH4BA&usg=AFQjCNFwRQ5lkg0IFBz6f0pWafW57iRcrQ&sig2=4dDC3d-AwzWT0vi7rrSYqw)
The court has bestowed on this subject its most deliberate consideration. The result is a conviction that the states have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control, the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the general government. This is, we think, the unavoidable consequence of that supremacy which the constitution has declared. We are unanimously of opinion, that the law passed by the legislature of Maryland, imposing a tax on the Bank of the United States, is unconstitutional and void.

This opinion does not deprive the states of any resources which they originally possessed. It does not extend to a tax paid by the real property of the bank, in common with the other real property within the state, nor to a tax imposed on the interest which the citizens of Maryland may hold in this institution, in common with other property of the same description throughout the state. But this is a tax on the operations of the bank, and is, consequently, a tax on the operation of an instrument employed by the government [17 U.S. 316, 437] of the Union to carry its powers into execution. Such a tax must be unconstitutional.


So, beware of falling into [U]the trap of letting any agency, state or federal, getting you to agree that a LM "deduction" on a 1040 Form is not "allowed" simply because LM is not mentioned as a "deduction" in the IRC.

LM in not in the IRC because it is outside the scope and jurisdiction of the IRC and the private FRS.

This jurisdictional line-in-the-sand is Divinely enforced by Mt 22:20-21 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/nas/matthew/passage/?q=matthew+22:20-21).


20 And He said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" 21 They said to Him, "Caesar's." Then He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."

LM is solely a "reduction" to the amount rightly-assumed to be "income" on Line 7 and other lines, because it is an amount that was declared explicitly on the record as transacted in Lawful Money per 12 USC 411, for which you have substantive evidence per FRE 803(6) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803) that is unrebuttable, IF you followed the instructions at http://1040relief.blogspot.com/p/getting-started.html (http://1040relief.blogspot.com/p/getting-started.html), namely:


...writing “lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)” on the front of one’s checks and deposit slips, underneath one’s name and address in the upper left-hand corner of these documents, then one can start subtracting those transaction amounts on the IRS 1040 forms (out-going amounts of LAWFUL money excluded).


LM is NOT a "deduction". Beware of "word-crafting" traps!

P.S. I recommend that you join David's new website at: http://www.lawfulmoneytrust.com/ (http://www.lawfulmoneytrust.com/)

David Neil
05-30-15, 03:18 AM
So far there is no letter. I was contacted by phone. It all began last week after having waited these many months since filing that I had not received my refund. Checking the web site they informed me that the form was being processed manually. I called and the attendant said they would make an inquiry. If I had not received any further requests for information in a weeks time, to call back. I waited a week, called back and the new attendant said there were no responses to their inquiry in the system and that she would have a supervisor contact the people handling the the manual audit. That very day, yesterday, I got a call from "Steve" at the end of the day and he said I was handling my file. He asked about my entry on line 21 for the 1040 and I explained 12 USC 411. I told him that since the income tax was a use tax and I did not use federal reserve notes there is not tax due. I also told him that the IRS had already accepted my return. As I indicated earlier they questioned a $100 discrepancy in quarterly withholding I had sent in and amounts I claimed on 1040. They said nothing about my line 21 reduction. My refund was therefore reduced by the $100. I volunteered to send a copy of this letter but he declined. I then stated that the Only requirement of the Oregon Form was to transfer the taxable income from line 37 of 1040 the adjusted gross income to their form and calculate taxes from there. I asked him what jurisdiction he had over questioning what was done on a 1040. He said that state law gave them the authority to question my income at any stage of the game.

He called today to tell me that he had read 12 usc 411 and did not see how that reduced my income. There was further back and forth along the same lines as yesterday when he stated that he would be calculating Oregon taxes based on his criteria and he would be sending me a letter. He also told me that I had to find something IRC to justify this entry on 21.

He assured me that I had the right to appeal, like I want to enter that den of vipers to get my money back.

Once I receive my letter I will post.

BTW just joined Lawful Money Trust and I just learned of McCulloch v Maryland. I will send this decision to him and point out out the logic of doug555 that LM is outside of the IRC and therefore I cannot prove a negative.

Looking forward to the section on Basic Trusts

allodial
05-30-15, 05:31 AM
You might show Oregon that principal isn't taxed.

doug555
05-30-15, 12:46 PM
So far there is no letter. I was contacted by phone. It all began last week after having waited these many months since filing that I had not received my refund. Checking the web site they informed me that the form was being processed manually. I called and the attendant said they would make an inquiry. If I had not received any further requests for information in a weeks time, to call back. I waited a week, called back and the new attendant said there were no responses to their inquiry in the system and that she would have a supervisor contact the people handling the the manual audit. That very day, yesterday, I got a call from "Steve" at the end of the day and he said I was handling my file. He asked about my entry on line 21 for the 1040 and I explained 12 USC 411. I told him that since the income tax was a use tax and I did not use federal reserve notes there is not tax due. I also told him that the IRS had already accepted my return. As I indicated earlier they questioned a $100 discrepancy in quarterly withholding I had sent in and amounts I claimed on 1040. They said nothing about my line 21 reduction. My refund was therefore reduced by the $100. I volunteered to send a copy of this letter but he declined. I then stated that the Only requirement of the Oregon Form was to transfer the taxable income from line 37 of 1040 the adjusted gross income to their form and calculate taxes from there. I asked him what jurisdiction he had over questioning what was done on a 1040. He said that state law gave them the authority to question my income at any stage of the game.

He called today to tell me that he had read 12 usc 411 and did not see how that reduced my income. There was further back and forth along the same lines as yesterday when he stated that he would be calculating Oregon taxes based on his criteria and he would be sending me a letter. He also told me that I had to find something IRC to justify this entry on 21.

He assured me that I had the right to appeal, like I want to enter that den of vipers to get my money back.

Once I receive my letter I will post.

BTW just joined Lawful Money Trust and I just learned of McCulloch v Maryland. I will send this decision to him and point out out the logic of doug555 that LM is outside of the IRC and therefore I cannot prove a negative.

Looking forward to the section on Basic Trusts

OK...

Look again at David's statement in "Public Money vs Private Credit (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8BdR0w2oZY_VWhWMGl4RWtpT2s/view?usp=sharing)":


On page 2 of 4:
A Taxpayer is allowed to claim a $1000 personal deduction when filing his return. The average taxpayer in the course of a year uses United States coins in vending machines, parking meters, small change, etc, and this public money must be deducted when computing the charge for using private credit.

IMO, this may establish the principle behind reducing 1040 tax by the amount of public money used.

David, can you specify where in the IRC you found this $1000 personal deduction?

David Neil
05-30-15, 02:30 PM
"From its earliest days, the Supreme Court has indicated that direct taxes include capitations and real property taxes at a minimum.24
The Court has also suggested that other types of taxes might be considered direct,25 although the Court did not find any such examples 26 until the
Pollock case in 1895."

Footnote 26: "26 See Hylton, 3 U.S. at 175 (upholding unapportioned tax on carriages); Pacific Insurance Co. v. Soule, 74 U.S. 433
(1869) (upholding tax on the business of insurance); Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. 533 (1869) (upholding tax on bank
notes); Scholey v. Rew, 90 U.S. 331 (1875) (upholding inheritance tax); Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881)
(upholding income tax)."

From: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40725.pdf

Tell them your time given to your employer was paid in money issued directly from the U.S. Treasury and not in bank credit issued by a bank! Veazie Bank v. Fenno!

When your time is paid in money issued under article 1 section 8 clause 2 (USN's) or 5 (coin) it is subject to the direct tax clauses.

When your time is discharged with bank credit issued by any bank operating under the federal reserve act it is subject to the excise tax or duty on contracts, on income upheld in Springer and explained in Veazie Bank.


Thank you Brian. I will also include these cites when directing my rebuttal the "Steve". My concern is that his attitude was stuck on "Find it in the IRC before I will consider it". This brings up the observation by doug555 that LM is without the IRC and I will never be able to find relevant information within. Citing law may well be met with refusal. I would then have to take it up with the tax court. We will see. Many times I have read in these threads that the tax courts do not want to hear challenges based on lawful money for fear of exposure to their scam.

doug555
05-30-15, 05:02 PM
Thank you Brian. I will also include these cites when directing my rebuttal the "Steve". My concern is that his attitude was stuck on "Find it in the IRC before I will consider it". This brings up the observation by doug555 that LM is without the IRC and I will never be able to find relevant information within. Citing law may well be met with refusal. I would then have to take it up with the tax court. We will see. Many times I have read in these threads that the tax courts do not want to hear challenges based on lawful money for fear of exposure to their scam.

IMO, if I were you, since all is governed now by contract/trust (and not by law), I would create a contract/trust with any agency/party that is trespassing against me, the man, and get this contract/trust (which is usually ratified by their silence/acquiescence) recorded in the county recorder's office so it becomes admissible substantive evidence.

I would create an "Affidavit in Support of the Lawful Money Reduction on Federal and State Tax Returns". Use this affidavit (http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/p/usufruct-affidavit.html) to give you a template for the format and content thereof.

I would also follow this procedure (http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/p/usufruct-procedure.html) to establish my status to perform the same.

This claim (http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/p/usufruct-claim.html), upon modification, may be a remedy for curing said trespass.

IMO... It is better to create a pro-active, substantive record. This record should begin with this letter (http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/p/usufruct-letter.html), modified for using LM. Then use the Fault (http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/p/usufruct-fault.html) and Default (http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/p/usufruct-default.html) letters.

I would not "argue" (discuss) this over the phone with anyone... such recorded proceedings, IMO, are a trap. A substantive, non-hearsay record must be created with the intent to enforce a trespass against the "man".

Others in this group may have better solutions, and I hope they will respond to you... in accord with Prov 11:14 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/proverbs/11-14.html)


14 Where no counsel is, the people fall : but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.

David Neil
06-22-15, 09:15 PM
Finally got a letter from Oregon Revenue. They are keeping my money so far and are threatening a frivolous return fine. I just got this so I haven't studied it much but I want to post it ASAP as I do not have the chops to rebutt this. My first thoughts are that it states there is an appearance. I would want to demand the exact position which is frivolous. It also states that "on its face" which is prima facie evedennce that will stand until refuted. I am not sure yet that I even did a self assessment. The Oregon form simply states to place the total I got in line X of form 1040 into Line Y of the Oregon form.

Please let me know what experiences you ladies and gentelmen have had in similar circumstance and how you approached it.

I did send Alex a letter stating my position of redeeming lawful money. sent a copy of my IRS statement showing that my return was evaluated and correct except the $100 over reporting error. I sent reference to Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. 533 (1869) and a couple of other points.

I will be looking closer to this once I return home.

2652

David Neil
06-22-15, 09:38 PM
Also they gave this July 20 deadline with apparent substantial penalties. Is there anyway to hold these off?

Chex
06-22-15, 10:07 PM
I am not saying this is the answer David (http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=33164)

But don’t move from your position just because someone like Alex Anderson has an opinion.

Refresh Post #73 and stick to your guns.

David Neil
06-22-15, 10:55 PM
Thanks Checks. IRS has, as far as I can tell accepted my return as accurate as I received my refund. This would therefore not be an IRS jurisdiction matter.

What I concentrate on is the first paragraph and the last. If the self-assessment they are speaking of regards the actual 1040 form I am wonder what allows them the be the arbiters of correctness as this is not there form. I am on the hold with IRS now to see if they can send me information confirming the fact that my "self-assessment" is correct. They also speak of "frivolous". I have not looked through ORS to find if a frivolous definition exists but it appears they are also basing frivolous on the IRS definitions which this forum as shown how to defeat.

My concern is the Oregon Statutes that state 361.922
The Department of Revenue shall assess a penalty of $250 against any individual who files what purports to be a return of the tax imposed by this chapter but which:
(a) Does not contain information on which the substantial correctness of the self-assessment may be judged; or
(b) Contains information that on its face indicates that the self-assessment is substantially incorrect.
(2) A penalty may be imposed under subsection (1) of this section only if the conduct referred to in subsection (1) of this section is due to:
(a) A position which is frivolous; or
(b) An intention, apparent on the face of the purported return, to delay or impede the administration of the income tax laws of this state.

So my most immediate threat is for them to assess the tax, impose fees and penalties and to appeal. I really can't afford this so I will have to have a very well thought out plan as to how to fight and survive. Since I always over pay on w-4 I should have enough (guess I should go through the math to see what I would have paid sans 12USC411). Their threats of 20-100% penalties suck, so I will have to read how they may or may not apply.

Also all of my demands have followed the format of Doug55 and include 12USC(a)2 "Any payment, conveyance, transfer, assignment, or delivery of property or interest therein, made to or for the account of the United States, or as otherwise directed, pursuant to this section or any rule, regulation, instruction, or direction issued hereunder shall to the extent thereof be a full acquittance and discharge for all purposes of the obligation of the person making the same; and no person shall be held liable in any court for or in respect to anything done or omitted in good faith in connection with the administration of, or in pursuance of and in reliance on, this section, or any rule, regulation, instruction, or direction issued hereunder."

Also in accord with Doug555 i have a sworn affidavit of my intention to demand lawful money.

As for the last paragraph I read this as "I won't provide any evidence you request, I am merely going to administer the law as I see it."

allodial
06-22-15, 11:32 PM
I believe the demand for lawful money isn't quite on point. AFAIK one is to #1 Redeem a bill for lawful money or #2 denominate transactions in lawful money. You start changing the verbiage too much and getting away from the applicable statute they might spot your error and come for "blood".

To reiterate: the checks would be redeemed for lawful money. Demanding lawful money isn't in the applicable statute.

David Neil
06-22-15, 11:49 PM
I believe the demand for lawful money isn't quite on point. AFAIK one is to #1 Redeem a bill for lawful money or #2 denominate transactions in lawful money. You start changing the verbiage too much and getting away from the applicable statute they might spot your error and come for "blood".

To reiterate: the checks would be redeemed for lawful money. Demanding lawful money isn't in the applicable statute.


Perhaps I was unclear or don't understand. My 1040/OR form 40 is based on my redemption of lawful money and is denoted as "demand lawful money reduction" on line 21 of 1040.

My checks are always stamped "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12USC411,95(a)2". Is this somehow wrong?

allodial
06-23-15, 01:20 AM
12 USC 411 pertains to the redemption for lawful money without reference to 'demanding' lawful money. Your redemption should put the bill into Treasury right and proper as lawful money. If the statute pertains to redemption and you are speaking of a demand for lawful money (a draft or a claim). That is, perhaps you need to explain to State of Oregon that you redeemed those checks/drafts for lawful money and that principal isn't subject to tax?

If the IRS approved the deduction, then Oregon DoR needs to do the same.

Paragraph 5 of that letter is 'screaming' "administrative law" --that the Oregon revenue department is probably subject to the plenary powers of the Oregon legislature.

Chex
06-23-15, 03:07 AM
12 USC 411 pertains to the redemption for lawful money without reference to 'demanding' lawful money. Your redemption should put the bill into Treasury the IRS approved the deduction, then Oregon DoR needs to do the same.Paragraph 5 of that letter is 'screaming' "administrative law" --that the Oregon revenue department is probably subject to the plenary powers of the Oregon legislature.

IRS jurisdiction matter.................................. Really?


The United States Code is the codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States. It is divided by broad subjects into 53 titles and published by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives. The U.S. Code was first published in 1926. The next main edition was published in 1934, and subsequent main editions have been published every six years since 1934. In between editions, annual cumulative supplements are published in order to present the most current information.

In fact its Alex Anderson making a contract; the state "cannot" speak.

allodial
06-23-15, 04:11 AM
I'm unaware of pointing out a jurisdiction issue except the Oregon Dept. of Revenue tax franchise AFAIK should be harmonizing with the IRS on income tax. The key is principal is not taxed. Call Oregon Department of Revenue and tell them you need their U.S./IRS tax ID for your records, they will probably decline but admit to having one.

Alex Anderson is in bold + is showing he is working within the Oregon Department of Revenue from the signature. Oregon Department of Revenue seems to be the collective name of the 'enforcement sureties' for the Oregon "tax code".

Chex
06-23-15, 01:39 PM
According to live in the know (http://www.intelius.com/people/Alex-Anderson/06zz72xn6nr) Alex Anderson also lives a double life at 1040 Tax Service & Accounting (https://www.google.com/search?q=1040+Tax+Service+%26amp%3B+Accounting&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-ContextMenu&ie=&oe=#q=1040+Tax+Service+%26+Accounting) probably scamming more folks out of currency.

David Neil
06-23-15, 02:22 PM
Chex, it does appear that Alex Anderson is making a contract. From what I can tell his letter is not a "Notice of Definciency" as described in ORS 305.265 but I cannot yet tell when section 10(c)(C) kicks in.

As I continue to research I believe I have found the catch 22. My return is being rejected because of ORS 305.265 (http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/305.265) 10(c)(C) " If the department may impose a penalty under ORS 316.992 (Penalty for filing incorrect return that is based on frivolous position or is intended to delay or impede administration) (1) with respect to the report or return".

The conditions for used in applying 316.992 (http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/3i6.992), in my opinion are:
316.992(1)(b) "Contains information that on its face indicates the self assessment is substantially incorrect"; 316.992(2)(a) "A position is frivolous"; 316.992(5)(c) "An argument that wages or salary are not includable in taxable income"

So what I am seeing is that "on its face" my lawful money reduction on 1040 line 21 fits 316.992(5)(c). It appears to me that I must rebut "on its face" and that wages and salary... is not what Lawful Money Reduction is

My approach is focusing on on 2 Sections of ORS


§ 316.012 (http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/316.012)¹ "Terms have same meaning as in federal laws"




If terms have the same meaning as federal law the definition for Frivolous Arguments is found in IRC 4.10.12.1.1. (http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-010-012r.html) The closest to the ORS I believe they are sighting is 4.10.12.1.1.1.A Wages/Receipts Not Income. (There is a more extensive listing at http://www.irs.gov/irb/2010-17_IRB/ar13.html not sure which is the most inclusive or up to date.) However, there is no mention of Lawful Money Redemption and none of the other definitions fit. 4.10.12.1.1 also states that "The return MUST be frivolous for a penalty to be asserted..."


and


§ 316.013 (http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/316.013)¹ "Determination of federal adjusted gross income

Unless the context requires otherwise and notwithstanding ORS 316.012 (Terms have same meaning as in federal laws), whenever, in the calculation of Oregon taxable income, reference to the taxpayers federal adjusted gross income is required to be made, the taxpayers federal adjusted gross income shall be as determined under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code as they may be in effect for the tax year of the taxpayer without any of the additions, subtractions or other modifications or adjustments required under this chapter and other laws of this state applicable to personal income taxation.




My evidence that gross income was calculated correctly is the fact that IRS accepted my return and refunded my withholding. (I have requested the IRS print out of my 2014 return). I would then say that for my return to be accepted and refund issued, my reduction for lawful money redemption must not be included in definitions of frivolous. If it were frivolous I would have also gotten a notice (
3176C) and a penalty access ("The return MUST be frivolous for a penalty to be asserted..."). So if terms are the same and lawful money redemption is not a frivolous term and if my adjusted gross income is correct then I properly Stated my Gross Income on Oregon form 40.

Now I jsut have to make myself clear and respond to this latest error refuting the claimed facts.

Franco
06-27-15, 06:24 AM
Neil ,I was reading that Oregon Department of Revenue letter sent to you.
It states,”the Oregon Constitution gives our legislative, in such laws,
to refer to laws of the United States. However these references do not
require you to have a federal tax liability in order to have a state tax liability.
This references to federal law are merely for the measurement of taxable income
And do not change the fact that a tax is imposed.”
Note: See the 1789 judiciary act saving to suitors act page 77 chapter 20. It states you have a right to a common law remedy , where the common law is competent to give it.
Through the common law you have access to debt free currency.
Its guaranteed to us in the 1st sentence of the federal reserve act.
The federal reserve act section 16 provides remedy for people who don’t want to deal with elastic currency.
Section 16 was codified into U.S.C. in title 12 section 411. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand and they shall be redeemed in federal reserve currency notes.
Now in accordance with his letter he states that “…references to federal law are merely for the measurement of taxable income …”
Provide copies of 1789 judiciary act and 12USC section 411.

allodial
06-27-15, 10:57 PM
Very good input. However, having studied tax law (in international scope) quite thoroughly, there are two very fundamental principals worth nothing:

1. Principal/trees = not taxed
2. Interest/fruit = taxed.

If they are measuring taxable income from the Federal, then he should find Oregon Department of Revenue arriving at the same amount of taxable income.

David Neil
06-28-15, 12:04 AM
Thanks Franco.
I too have concerns about that paragraph, but my thoughts did note allow me to arrive to your conclusion. Thank you for opening my eyes.

David Neil
06-28-15, 12:19 AM
Allodial,
While I did not use that analogy, my response to Alex circled to that fact several times. How can Oregon come up with one set of numbers while IRS comes up with another. Oregon laws states that Oregon tax is based on adjusted gross income as determined on 1040 Line 4.In fact it is the very first item entered on Oregon Form 40. It is the taxable income that is the measure to determin the amount of Oregon tax. SO truly Oregon is not taxing the income but measuring the use of something based on income. We'll see how he responds.

There are some interesting discussions on the lawfulmoneytrust.com site. There are a few folks getting "Frivolous Position" letters from IRS and State agency.

The absurd thing is, in order to rectify the Oregon tax, the only thing to do is to repudiate my 1040 as submitted to IRS and has to my judgement been found to be accurate and refund processed. Or I can lie about the amount I put in Line 8 of OR Form 40 to make make the numbers come out as if Oregon was not based on Federal. Even though Alex states that even if there is no Federal Liability a State Liability can exist. I can't see this based on how the form is laid out.

allodial
06-28-15, 02:40 AM
You can basically do the equivalent of an order to show cause: as in make them show you how taxing you for bills you redeemed for lawful money and were effectively the underwriter could be regarded to give rise to any taxable gain to you? Kind've relates to "conditional acceptance". I would avoid arguing as to the amount or whether you owe or not. I'd ask questions as how why they are arguing or disputing the Federal amount or Federal filing. Specifically why are they creating a controversy over a matter settled in the U.S. Tax Court.

Re: State Liability
Sure, State liability could arise from property tax, motor vehicle fees, sales tax, use tax, taxes assessed by the State or even from insufficient State taxes withheld--he isn't saying anything unique .. "it can exist"--true. Did you have any of that State-level kind of tax liability with respect to that filing?

Presumption
Of course, if amount of taxable income on the Federal level is the same as the on the State level then the issue overall might be moot. If there is a discrepancy per Oregon Dept. Revenue's "magic abacus" then I'd say there seems to be problem.

Re: Falsification
Also I would not falsify any such filing, that's asking for trouble. Perjury in State tax court? Not a good idea maybe?

2683
Can we has some munnie pwease even doe we issint owed it?

Franco
06-29-15, 03:58 AM
Oregon state IRS stated:
The return you prepared and filed appears to be based on a position which is frivolous and contains information that on its face indicates that the self assessment is substantially incorrect”.
What is the position he is refering to? He does not specify what specific information ,”…that on its face indicates that the self assessment is substantially incorrect”.
The agent is so vague or ambiguous that the party is not able to make a knowledgeble and intelligent reply. Sisk v. Texas parks and wildlife dept. 644 Fed.2d, 1056, 1059 (5th Cir. 1981). (make sure look up the cases)
Because he is so vague you cannot rely on a fair notice of the allegations for the type of complaint he is alleging against you.
(identify all the defects and details desired).
Request a more definite statement from the IRS. Also you can request an extension of time of (30,60 or 90 days) to begin on the day that you receive the more definite statements. Make the request in the interest o f justice. It is also requested to ensure they are a administering existing laws and to ensure they are applied fairly and consistently .
State that without the more definite statement you cannot make a knowledgeble and intelligent reply. It would also be in violation of due process.
What taxable income are they refering to?
Stated, “This references to federal law are Merely for the measurement of taxable income And do not change the fact that a tax is imposed.”
If you used lawful money throughout the year how can it be “…a fact that a tax is imposed?” How did they measure a taxable income from your lawful income?
First they have to show you used FRN’s to have them impose a tax.
How can a tax/user fee be imposed when you have administrative evidence (signed checks under 12USC411) to prove you used lawful money during the year in question and backed by your U.S. Dist. Ct. records ?
So if they have no way to measure the tax, because 12USC411 is not within the code, how can it be a fact according to them “…that a tax is imposed”?
also they are under presumption you are trustee to the trust.

Chex
06-29-15, 05:49 AM
Oregon state IRS stated: If you used lawful money throughout the year how can it be “…a fact that a tax is imposed?” How did they measure a taxable income from your lawful income? First they have to show you used FRN’s to have them impose a tax. How can a tax/user fee be imposed when you have administrative evidence (signed checks under 12USC411) to prove you used lawful money during the year in question and backed by your U.S. Dist. Ct. records ? So if they have no way to measure the tax, because 12USC411 is not within the code, how can it be a fact according to them “…that a tax is imposed”? also they are under presumption you are trustee to the trust.

Very well stated Franco: "When a defendant complains of matters that can be clarified and developed during discovery, rather than matters which impede his ability to form a responsive pleading, an order directing the plaintiff to file a more definite statement is not warranted." Sisk v. Texas parks and wildlife dept. 644 Fed.2d, 1056, 1059 (5th Cir. 1981).

allodial
06-29-15, 06:01 AM
Imagine, tax court arguing with both U.S. Congress and the U.S. District Court --even arguing with an Article II judge.

David Neil
06-29-15, 12:27 PM
Very well stated Franco: "When a defendant complains of matters that can be clarified and developed during discovery, rather than matters which impede his ability to form a responsive pleading, an order directing the plaintiff to file a more definite statement is not warranted." Sisk v. Texas parks and wildlife dept. 644 Fed.2d, 1056, 1059 (5th Cir. 1981).

The dilemma here is that using the methods the have, rejection under ORS316.992, I will not be the the defendant, but the plaintiff in an appeal. The burden of proof will be on me that lawful money redemption is not frivolous and by inference lawful money is not taxable by the State.

Franco
06-30-15, 12:55 AM
Thanks Chex, Franco

Michael Joseph
07-01-15, 12:02 AM
The dilemma here is that using the methods the have, rejection under ORS316.992, I will not be the the defendant, but the plaintiff in an appeal. The burden of proof will be on me that lawful money redemption is not frivolous and by inference lawful money is not taxable by the State.

Counterclaim.

marcel
09-23-16, 09:35 PM
Have any of you ever sued the IRS for not recognizing your demand for lawful money, adding an assessment, and then refusing to remove it even after shown evidence of your claim of lawful money redemption?

Chex
09-24-16, 01:55 PM
A: Your question isn't income-related but And then factor in that no other theory provides such a complete answer to everything tax-related. It accounts for all the missing pieces:

national currency issuance was taxed, why would they stop?
why the tax code never defines "income"
why the code is so convoluted & uses so many custom-defined terms
why those who endorse Fed Reserve currency are convicted
why the law makes a distinction between FRNs & Lawful Money
why the law still allows redemption in LM
why the tax return is voluntary
why you have a right to be heard
why no lawful money cases adjudicated
why they can't bring proof-of-claim
why the disinfo agents badmouth it (War by Propaganda)

And that's just barely scratching the surface. All the data points fit together perfectly. It's the unified field theory of taxation. .

Mr. Cash can really get you mind going. Why Documents under seal (deeds) do not require consideration for there to be a binding contract (https://www.google.com/search?q=documents+under+seal+%28deeds%29+do+not+r equire+consideration+for+there+to+be+a+binding+con tract&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-ContextMenu&ie=&oe=)

Doubt as to liability exists where there is a genuine dispute as to the existence or amount of the correct tax debt under the law. If you have a legitimate doubt that you owe part or all of the tax debt, you will need to complete a Form 656-L, Offer in Compromise (Doubt as to Liability).

Doubt as to liability cannot be disputed or considered if the tax debt has been established by a final court decision or judgment concerning the existence or amount of the assessed tax debt or if the assessed tax debt is based on current law. Submitting an offer application does not guarantee that the IRS will accept your offer. It begins a process of evaluation and verification by the IRS.

Generally, you will send in a doubt as to liability offer when you were unable to dispute the amount of tax the IRS claims you owe during the time allowed by the Internal Revenue Code or IRS guidelines. Possible reasons for submitting a doubt as to liability offer in compromise include the following: the examiner made a mistake interpreting the tax law, the examiner failed to consider the evidence presented; new evidence is available to support a change to the assessment. Below are some examples of when it may be appropriate to make an offer based on doubt as to liability.

You must provide a written statement explaining why the tax debt or portion of the tax debt is incorrect. In addition, you must provide supporting documentation or evidence that will help the IRS identify the reason(s) you doubt the accuracy of the tax debt.

Note: Failing to provide a written statement will cause your offer to be returned with no further consideration.

Form 656-L (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f656l.pdf)

lorne
09-27-16, 10:18 PM
No Marcel, never sued the IRS but have seen their computers just continue the billing cycle like you haven't told them anything about lawful money. I don't know where you are but it's a long slow process from first CP notice to FNOITL which would end in the garnishment/seizure. Could take years.

I suspect the IRS scam has been scientifically developed to work on most human animals and when they come across that one (in a million?) who actually knows what's going on, well... they just continue the billing cycle, right, what's the downside?

If you stand firm in the law and respond, dispute or R4C every IRS letter/notice they will eventually relent. Michael Joseph has written some effective letters although I wouldn't copy verbatim. You should come to know what you're talking about.

marcel
10-01-16, 05:27 PM
thanks but suggesting I should offer them $1 Offer in Compromise on Form 656-L when I have no tax liability? It could b their IRS scam isn't working because I'm not a "human animal" but a shell, with shoes.
What's the downside? downside for them is, I could sue. get facts on the record that my lawful money income is not taxable income. Expose their fraud in court.

lorne
10-01-16, 11:48 PM
Sue in tax court? Tax court is not a court of record.

Yes, it could be you don't respond to guilt-, fear- or manipulation-based discipline.

Chex
10-03-16, 12:06 PM
In their world - Yes. The Tax Court is a court of record. (https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/taxpayer_info_during.htm#DURING10)

28 U.S. Code § 453 - Oaths of justices and judges

Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 907; Pub. L. 101–650, title IV, §?404, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5124.)

Know your identify.

marcel
10-19-16, 08:10 PM
so if not Tax Court where would I sue the IRS? Hoping for agent one-on-one I called them up. Got a young man, very nosey, asked me where I worked and, get this, where I banked! Told him that was private and he patched me through to a woman who looked up details in their AUR system. Had a civil chat, told her a mistake had been made but she would not budge an inch on INCOME. I know that not all income is taxable income but she talked like in her mind all receipts were income to be reported. Since I was disputing the payment of INCOME she told me I could write to IRS and ask them to inquire with the payer of alleged income (now out of business). So I''ll try that.

Chex
10-20-16, 02:29 PM
Because it always starts with a revenue agent.

Because judges protect the McFadden Act of 1927 (https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/is-the-federal-reserve-act-going-to-expire.htm)and a lawyer’s first duty is to the courts……………..

Maybe –

Taxpayer Advocate Service funding was cut - Nina Olsen Leadership? (https://taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/about/our-leadership)

Bloomberg BNA's (http://www.bna.com/criminal-law-reporter-p5446/)experienced lawyer-editors sift through hundreds of cases from the U.S. Supreme Court, federal courts of appeals, federal district courts, principal courts of the states, and the Court of Military Appeals, reporting the decisions that matter most to criminal lawyers.Q.

Where is my part of the $300,000,000 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5115)(that) may not be held or used for a reserve?

A. Isn’t it on your 1040?

Yes from my very first paycheck 25 years ago - Grandfathered in.

Could this be a class action suit (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:u-fEHGgLyPcJ:www.racklaw.com/pdfs/Law_Library/taxation/suing-irs.pdf+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)?

lorne
10-21-16, 01:55 PM
Since I was disputing the payment of INCOME she told me I could write to IRS and ask them to inquire with the payer of alleged income (now out of business).
That's interesting. The IRS woman may be providing you opportunity to win this on a technicality without confirming RLM. As you know the IRS attorneys are very reluctant to provide any evidence that David's interpretation of the Federal Reserve Act is correct. So the IRS can inquire with your out-of-business payer, get no response, and therefore... no confirmation of "payment." A win for you and a win for the IRS because they don't confirm your wacky "redeeming lawful money" theory.

marcel
10-28-16, 02:23 PM
Maybe, will let you know. Thanks for the http://www.racklaw.com/pdfs/Law_Library/taxation/ links.

And here's something else I found. Was at IRS.gov looking for my transcript. You can request one by mail and it only asks for SSN, DOB, and tax refund amount to process it. To verify identity. You can also request online transcript but that wants the following additional info:

4634

marcel
03-15-17, 02:52 PM
financial account = loan of the Federal Reserve's private credit.

Wow. I have good news. The IRS was not agreeing with my 2013 lawful money tax return and we've been going back and forth over a year. On the day I sat down to write a letter to TIGTA as you guys suggested because it seemed I wasn't getting anywhere (started gathering and copying documents), I check the mail to find this IRS refund check!

4797

But even better was this:

4798

The IRS "made the changes I requested." They agreed my lawful money receipts were not taxable income. Praise the Lord!
and Thank you. Especially David & MJ.

David Merrill
03-17-17, 01:23 PM
That timing is a lesson.

We all orchestrate through projection, much more than we first anticipate. Knowledge is when our perceptions are in accord to law.

marcel
03-18-17, 10:04 PM
Yes. Here is my final letter to the IRS that worked although it could be there's nothing special about the letter but that I simply held my ground and outlasted them. Quite a lengthy ordeal. At one point they even sent me a frivolous penalty threat notice. Also noticed that the initial return was filed Feb. 2014 so it could be they were up against the 3 year statute of limitations. And the check is refund for TY2015 which was held up because of the $10k the IRS wanted for TY2013. So now we're even.

4799

doug555
03-19-17, 01:26 AM
Yes. Here is my final letter to the IRS that worked although it could be there's nothing special about the letter but that I simply held my ground and outlasted them. Quite a lengthy ordeal. At one point they even sent me a frivolous penalty threat notice. Also noticed that the initial return was filed Feb. 2014 so it could be they were up against the 3 year statute of limitations. And the check is refund for TY2015 which was held up because of the $10k the IRS wanted for TY2013. So now we're even.

4799

Your letter states "That Form 1099-MISC issued was based on Bad Payer Data."

IMO, that 1099-MISC was CORRECT. The default currency for all transactions in the USA is FRNs. It is OUR duty to CORRECT THAT PRESUMPTION in every instance of same. This is WHY we must file a 1040 yearly to inform the IRS of our LMDs for ALL transactions, so they can use the total amount for all presumed FRNs (the total that is entered on Line 21) to reverse/discharge that amount from the "national debt".

David Merrill
03-19-17, 02:28 AM
Your letter states "That Form 1099-MISC issued was based on Bad Payer Data."

IMO, that 1099-MISC was CORRECT. The default currency for all transactions in the USA is FRNs. It is OUR duty to CORRECT THAT PRESUMPTION in every instance of same. This is WHY we must file a 1040 yearly to inform the IRS of our LMDs for ALL transactions, so they can use the total amount for all presumed FRNs (the total that is entered on Line 21) to reverse/discharge that amount from the "national debt".




Bingo! Thank you Doug.

doug555
04-03-17, 10:30 PM
Yes. Here is my final letter to the IRS that worked although it could be there's nothing special about the letter but that I simply held my ground and outlasted them. Quite a lengthy ordeal. At one point they even sent me a frivolous penalty threat notice. Also noticed that the initial return was filed Feb. 2014 so it could be they were up against the 3 year statute of limitations. And the check is refund for TY2015 which was held up because of the $10k the IRS wanted for TY2013. So now we're even.

4799

I wonder how many others are currently dealing with Frivolous Filing letters for 2016 Tax Returns with Lawful Money reductions on Line 21. I am noticing something strange.

Please send me a Private Message here on this board via "Notifications" link on top right corner if you want to brainstorm a bit, or have some results to report.

Thanks for your contribution Marcel!

marcel
04-05-17, 02:49 AM
You are welcome. What intel are you hoping to gather? I'm noticing that too; non-endorsers beat Frivolous Filing Penalty threats. Suitors who redeem lawful money defeat the IRS presumptions. I don't use FRNs. There is no fear, doubt or uncertainty here. Did your FF letter look like mine?

PS. should do something about all these popup ads!

481148124813

doug555
04-09-17, 03:46 PM
You are welcome. What intel are you hoping to gather? I'm noticing that too; non-endorsers beat Frivolous Filing Penalty threats. Suitors who redeem lawful money defeat the IRS presumptions. I don't use FRNs. There is no fear, doubt or uncertainty here. Did your FF letter look like mine?

PS. should do something about all these popup ads!


Yes... exactly like mine! Thanks!! So you got this FF last June, 2016 about LMD 2013 return?

My letter came this April 2017 for LMD 2016 return.

Anyone else get a FF letter during 2017?

fano24chevy
07-20-17, 02:31 AM
I received the same 3176C yesterday on my TY2016 Lawful Money Redeemed return. Not sure why; filed the same for 2014 & 2015, no issues. Interestingly, they sent me a letter about 2015 saying "there was evidence of fraud" regarding my return and therefore couldn't issue my (significant) refund. Caught me off guard, since the sleeping dog has been silent for a while. Going to R4C tomorrow and post in my evidence repository case file.

"Let's see if he's awake..."? Who knows...

David Merrill
07-20-17, 02:34 PM
Take a look and consider using the New Technology (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?2424-Glimpse-Tomorrow-s-Technology-Garnishment-in-Admiralty).

This contemplates garnishment in admiralty of the Secretary's salary. And copies to parties like:

4940

David Merrill
07-27-17, 08:20 PM
Additionally the new technology is supplemented with an invitation for the IRS and/or State Revenue Department to sit down and audit, to study the redemption process. This Memorandum in itself has resulted in full refund(s) and revocation of FrivPen bills.

ag maniac
08-16-17, 05:09 PM
Interestingly enough, I just received the refund check for TY2016 last week.......4 months after paper filing a LM return.

The TY2015 refund is still nowhere to be seen.....no IRS letters, nothing.....just a fone convo 5/2016 threatening burial by FF notices and "you're refund is frozen".

And the TY2014 refund was timely.

Me thinks with their inconsistencies among us, they're shaking a tree seeing what fruit may drop.

David Merrill
08-16-17, 08:18 PM
Interestingly enough, I just received the refund check for TY2016 last week.......4 months after paper filing a LM return.

The TY2015 refund is still nowhere to be seen.....no IRS letters, nothing.....just a fone convo 5/2016 threatening burial by FF notices and "you're refund is frozen".

And the TY2014 refund was timely.

Me thinks with their inconsistencies among us, they're shaking a tree seeing what fruit may drop.

Yes. I get that feeling all the time. There is a lot to be said for confidence. I equate that with competence. From what you say, it might be worthwhile to write a letter or maybe even show up at the local office to assess and audit your account. That should do it.

We are beyond the validation this is the correct interpretation of remedy. It is.

enlightened
09-19-17, 02:23 AM
I too received one of these 3176C notices. Should I R4C and resend via registered mail?

David Merrill
09-19-17, 02:48 AM
Refusal for Cause is the traditional method to keep any voluntary process from developing. If you have been redeeming lawful money then you have severed your relationship with the Fed and are no longer using central banking currency.

You might already know my Lesson Plan:


proper identity - true name
record-forming Refusal for Cause
redeeming lawful money

enlightened
09-19-17, 03:09 AM
Yes I am aware. I will promptly R4C it via Registered mail tomorrow.

I have already recieved full fed refunds for 2013-2014-2015and 2016. This notice was for 2015 which was filled in 2017 (employer did not send in time prior to my out of country trip) It looks like 2017 filings are being heavily scrutinized.

enlightened
09-22-17, 12:37 AM
Well after doing some research and speaking with the IRS.

While the IRS may be a trust fund in puerto rico and the biggest scam this world has knows it unfortunately has the masses in its favor. Regardless of the validity in the law that the IRS has no basis in the law to tax income except as a excise, tariff, or import tax and back in the day as a voluntary war tax on us citizens that live in DC, its territories, Guam, PR, USVI etc and that they are deceiving the population into believing that they must file (state citizens considered nonresident aliens by admission into their jurisdiction by filing first tax return) and by doing so volunteer to be part of their jurisdiction and considered a non-resident alien living in a foreign country (states) it's massive con and no different than what hitler did to brainwash people.

That said if things get out of hand and you must go to tax court, and in front of a jury. Do you really want to put your freedom in some random old judge views on the correct interpretation of the law or a tax accountant jury whose livelihood depends on filing taxes and purporting the scam(at no fault of his own as he has been brainwashed?). the law system in this country is about the majority not true correctness in it's interpretation.

That is the question I asked myself and the answer is NO. The one thing I have learned is that if I ever decide to Open a Trust fund or investment fund I must open it in puerto rico. As puerto rico residents are exempt from federal tax laws and puerto rico has it's own (4% flat tax rate) being a us territory. and under act 20--22 I am allowed complete privacy on my accounts which is why the IRS runs their business from there and how the boss of the IRS could not produce a ledger, report explaining where trillions of dollars went and the federal judge in the case knew that but still attempted to have her spill the beans and incriminate herself/theIRS

To sum up,

I have an IRS employee on record stating that redeeming lawful money is a frivolous position they have identified. She also said recording the call was illegal. Which is not true in my one party state. But this just goes to show that it's he said she said in the court of law regarding what is legal and enforced and the MAJORITY opinion always wins.

And what is that MAJORITY opinion regarding filing taxes REGARDLESS of the legality and validity of the IRS jurisdiction to enforce a mandatory tax on all? unfortunately that is that everyone must pay the tax...

Having said that I am personally going to stay under the radar with these people and over the next 10 years renounce my citizenship after I have established a home base elsewhere in the world. That is really the only true way to escape them. Thinking I could conduct business in Puerto Rico keep my US citizenship and not be subject to federal taxes, and state taxes as long as I do not make "US Employee income" whether legitimate or presumed.

To qualify, an individual must not have been a resident of Puerto Rico within in the last 15 years. You must become a resident of Puerto Rico by December 31, 2035, and you must reside there for at least 183 days a year. You also have to do the paperwork, filing an application with the tax authority there. Once that's approved, it’s a binding contract and you’ll get:

Tax-free interest and dividends earned after you become a resident.
No long-term capital gains tax on appreciation after you become a resident.
5% tax on long-term capital gain for appreciation before you move for any sales during your first 10 years as a resident.

Act 20 and Act 22, which provide for corporate tax rate of just 4% for companies exporting services outside of Puerto Rico, as well as a full exemption for individuals from taxes on most types of investment income.

marcel
09-22-17, 01:39 AM
I'm sure the IRS would like us all to believe redeeming lawful money is a frivolous position. But it isn't. It's not even listed on the IRS list (https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-tax-arguments-introduction).

Look again at your 3176c letter ... we are proposing to assess a $5000 penalty ... How do you respond to proposals? In my case I didn't agree to their proposal and no Frivolous Penalty was assessed. Even better, the IRS agreed with me (and David Merrill) that the redeemed lawful money reported on the Form 1099 was not taxable income. No tax liability and no tax paid!

enlightened
09-22-17, 02:31 AM
I'd love to see the verbiage used in response to your 3176C letter.

lorne
09-23-17, 09:06 PM
verbiage:
1. Wording of a superabundant or superfluous character, abundance of words without necessity or without much meaning; excessive wordiness.
2. Diction, wording, verbal expression.

https://www.dailywritingtips.com/do-we-really-need-%E2%80%9Cverbiage%E2%80%9D-and-%E2%80%9Cverbage%E2%80%9D/

marcel
09-25-17, 04:12 PM
Heh. The fact remains ... my response letters worked. No tax liability and no tax paid.

Rather than all that Puerto Rico rigmarole you may find it easier to simply redeem lawful money:

4949

enlightened
09-26-17, 04:15 AM
I have been redeeming lawful money since 2013. However 2015 filing filed in 2017 resulted in the 3176C letter. Simply responding stating that I have redeemed lawful money along with copies of checks showing this will get them to nullify the frivpen letter?

Lorne,

Like I said verbiage to the masses and truth for select few.

fano24chevy
10-08-17, 06:58 PM
Follow up to my 7/19/17 post...

I R4C’d the 3176C letter, posted the timely response in my evidence file w the USDC, all has been quiet. I check mail today, and a CP15 letter is in the mail, assessing a penalty of $5000 for a frivolous return, dated 10/9/2017.

I didn’t go beyond R4Cing the 3176C letter. I believe David M mentioned “garnishment” of executive salaries after my 7/19 post, but I failed to see that as an option in my case. Since I provided evidence of RLM w my 2016 return, I’m not sure it will be effective. I believe my course of action is to R4C this presentment, along with the Lawful Money demand evidence (which is noted at my bank and my employer on the W4). I know the LM redemption is right, always have. How have you all responded that was effective? I still have the documentation from the “user fee” coding from before, proving one reason (of many)LM redemption works.

Having been through this pre RLM, which didn’t end well, I’m open to any council that is offered. Thoughts?

David Merrill
10-08-17, 07:55 PM
Follow up to my 7/19/17 post...

I R4C’d the 3176C letter, posted the timely response in my evidence file w the USDC, all has been quiet. I check mail today, and a CP15 letter is in the mail, assessing a penalty of $5000 for a frivolous return, dated 10/9/2017.

I didn’t go beyond R4Cing the 3176C letter. I believe David M mentioned “garnishment” of executive salaries after my 7/19 post, but I failed to see that as an option in my case. Since I provided evidence of RLM w my 2016 return, I’m not sure it will be effective. I believe my course of action is to R4C this presentment, along with the Lawful Money demand evidence (which is noted at my bank and my employer on the W4). I know the LM redemption is right, always have. How have you all responded that was effective? I still have the documentation from the “user fee” coding from before, proving one reason (of many)LM redemption works.

Having been through this pre RLM, which didn’t end well, I’m open to any council that is offered. Thoughts?

I see your R4C on the 3176C from July. That was clean process.

Contemplate garnishment on the Secretary under Rule B(1)(c) with this R4C on the FrivPen bill. I will help you.

David Merrill
10-08-17, 11:40 PM
I strongly suggest that you pay me for my Lesson Plan and not to try making this fly without my experience (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=4962&d=1507505664). I have attached a Template. This is right on the knife-edge October of 2017. The big improvement is this is now in the venue of the Defendant/Respondent.

Here is the Rule (https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_B).


Rule B(1)(c) If the plaintiff or the plaintiff's attorney certifies that exigent circumstances make court review impracticable, the clerk must issue the summons and process of attachment and garnishment. The plaintiff has the burden in any post-attachment hearing under Rule E(4)(f) to show that exigent circumstances existed.

The two oaths are Refused for Cause in the same style that cause this federal "judge" to redact his signature and DoB from his own oath before the clerk posted it on PACER!! Circle the altered sentence, the CODE, and write "NO!!" And of course stamp the bills on the backside or write your Demand.


4963

fano24chevy
10-09-17, 03:13 AM
Thank you David! I have just emailed my particulars within the template to you. I will work on the balance of the documents we discussed tomorrow

ag maniac
10-09-17, 09:11 PM
I'd love to see the verbiage used in response to your 3176C letter.


Here's some "verbiage" to ponder -- from StSC member 'martin earl'. He redeemed the three 3176C's on the following year's return.....an extra 15k removed from the Nat'l Debt !!

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1994-Notice-to-the-secretary-of-the-Treasury-and-Frivolous-filing-penalties&p=20394&viewfull=1#post20394

fano24chevy
10-10-17, 12:42 AM
Thank you ag maniac! I will indeed ponder the verbiage for potential utilization...

MaxF
11-08-17, 12:09 AM
I have followed David for many years and stamp the checks "redeemed per 12 USC 411, as agent"

But... when dealing with the IRS, i am a firm believer in the kitchen sink approach.

that starts by:

1) Sending a self executing contract in the form of an affidavit with something like Paul Andrew Mitchells 31 questions to the IRS commissioner by proof of service, Certified Mail, to the Commissioner, with a notarized affidavit that has your revocation, and termination of your signatures from the beginning of time as your recission of the first election to be taxed for fraud, failure to disclose, and discrimination by employers of your right to work if you refuse to fill out a witholding statment.
2) Sending the same to the Congressman and Senator from your area. (how will i manage my affairs if you dont answer these questions).
3) Sending the same to the Inspector general of the Secretary of the Treasury.

4) After 30 days sending an opportunity to cure giving another 10 days to rebut the affidavit of obligation. Finally a default judgement based upon silence, tacit agreement and maxims of law. Have 3 adult witnesses be your witnesses to any responses and issue as a tribunal a certificate of default judgement.

5) After the 45 days or? and Default has occured then filing your W2's as exempt on information and belief, and qualify your autograph All rights retained, nonassumptsit, by: ____________________.

6 I file notice and demands in affidavit form, to return my property instead of tax returns (too many traps on a 1040) after showing photos of stamped checks redeemed and and affidavit of no tax liability by silent acquiescence, laches, and estopple, from first Obligation affidavits, the section 83 definition for income (David Myrlands stuff) being the excess of the exchange of services for an arms length agreement of what my services are worth and no "income" (excess) was paid to me, and the fact that no territorial constitutional jurisdiction exists to apply Congressional law on me in the geographical area known and defined in the California Constitution of 1850, and that taxation has been declared by the Supreme Court as an "exaction" (unlawful extortion), etc. demanding to show cause any oath of office by the Commissioner, or who is sending any letters, the authority to violate the 4th, 5th, 1st (redress of greivance) and the State repetition of the same, impair the obligation of a contract between me and my boss, by a third party intervener (IRS), unlawful orders are bills of attainder (judgement without jury trial), IRS is not judicial branch (cant issue orders) and cannot make rules (not legislative branch) etc.

7) I file a 1 or 2 page FOIA, demanding to have the IRS show any documents purporting to act as an "assessment" or "notice of Lien", or "lien", or "notice of levy" or "Levy" ,and any factual evidence i am an employee of the Federal government, and the full legal names and address for service of process for anyone making any claims upon me.

8) in response to the FOIA i have a signed statement that the IRS does not have to "create" documents that would be required to answer my request and it "appears" you are challenging your responsibility to pay taxes.
I replied, thank you for the admission you have no assessments for the 10 years requested and that no liens or levys exist (even tho your garnishing on a bogus levy) and if in fact any factual evidence comes out in the future at any trial I will be charging you (IRS FOIA officer) with concealment 18 USC 2071, 1001 of material facts, have a nice day.

The kitchen sink re IRS taxation:
1) The IRS was never created by Congress and have no oath of office making them impersonating public officials (treasury officers).
2) the Congress has no jurisdiction to legislate laws that apply outside of Washington, D.C. (see my video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVooIVtYvnk I could add alot more cases if I chose to.
3) the United States of America is a fiction, does not exist, cant face my accuser, cant be an attorney for a fiction (imagine the questions to a subpeona'd US atty "when did you last meet with the Plaintiff?" "when did the Plaintiff sign a power of attorney to let you represent him?", " Do you admit your psychotic as you belief that your client is real but your cant produce them?"
4) the Plaintiff USA is not a "real party in interest", has no "standing" (personal injury or loss), and cannot ratify the commencement of the action against you. Neither will the Plaintiff ever answer a Bill of Particulars stating the form of law (commonLaw, Equity, Admiralty, or Maritime) and the accounting (showing the contract and monetary exchanges and ledger under GAAP) or criminal act (sans personal affidavit of a man witnessing you committing a crime).
All Taxation under the Revenue laws is based upon in rem (Admiralty) proceedings and Admiralty only applies on the sea (by SC case law) and cannot come onto land.
5) No one is a 14th amendment citizen of the United States of America as the required 3 elements being :1) a person (statutorily means a fiction- EJUSDEM GENERIS, 2) born or naturalized in the United States (where's that- UCC--Cal.COM §9307. (h) The United States is located in the District of Columbia.) and subject to the jurisdiction (living in D.C.) and why is that important, the territorial courts (US district courts only have jurisdiction over US citizens- SC caselaw). And what the hell is a Congressional declared "district" doing on California land? That started in 1789 with first judicial act of Congress creating "districts" instead of establishing Federal Courts in each "State" they created districts covering multiple states. And a denial of being a registered agent, or an agent or party to any Corporation, registered organization created by the birth certificate, might help as all taxation in based on involvement in corporate commerical activity (ad valorem).

If assaulted by the Attys for the USA on IRS issues I would certainly like to have some actual evidence of the IRS agents refusal to come with clean hands and their commission of fraud (silence is faud where there is a moral duty to speak (caselaw) instead of no written evidene. They are at war with the people and ignore each and every form of law and make the law as they go, concealing evidence, tampering with juries, tampering with grand juries, etc. The whole thing is based upon fraud and silence. With a written record they cannot claim ignorance.

marcel
01-16-18, 12:48 AM
So, the "exigent circumstance" that makes court review impracticable is ... the court's judge has altered the oath?

David Merrill
01-16-18, 02:47 AM
So, the "exigent circumstance" that makes court review impracticable is ... the court's judge has altered the oath?

Thank you both! I am combining both posts quoted to show the contrast. The Kitchen Sink approach is reflective of many years of research and requires some sort of honor behind whoever is hearing the matter. So the Exigent Circumstances would indeed be indictment that there is not.




I have followed David for many years and stamp the checks "redeemed per 12 USC 411, as agent"

But... when dealing with the IRS, i am a firm believer in the kitchen sink approach.

that starts by:

1) Sending a self executing contract in the form of an affidavit with something like Paul Andrew Mitchells 31 questions to the IRS commissioner by proof of service, Certified Mail, to the Commissioner, with a notarized affidavit that has your revocation, and termination of your signatures from the beginning of time as your recission of the first election to be taxed for fraud, failure to disclose, and discrimination by employers of your right to work if you refuse to fill out a witholding statment.
2) Sending the same to the Congressman and Senator from your area. (how will i manage my affairs if you dont answer these questions).
3) Sending the same to the Inspector general of the Secretary of the Treasury.

4) After 30 days sending an opportunity to cure giving another 10 days to rebut the affidavit of obligation. Finally a default judgement based upon silence, tacit agreement and maxims of law. Have 3 adult witnesses be your witnesses to any responses and issue as a tribunal a certificate of default judgement.

5) After the 45 days or? and Default has occured then filing your W2's as exempt on information and belief, and qualify your autograph All rights retained, nonassumptsit, by: ____________________.

6 I file notice and demands in affidavit form, to return my property instead of tax returns (too many traps on a 1040) after showing photos of stamped checks redeemed and and affidavit of no tax liability by silent acquiescence, laches, and estopple, from first Obligation affidavits, the section 83 definition for income (David Myrlands stuff) being the excess of the exchange of services for an arms length agreement of what my services are worth and no "income" (excess) was paid to me, and the fact that no territorial constitutional jurisdiction exists to apply Congressional law on me in the geographical area known and defined in the California Constitution of 1850, and that taxation has been declared by the Supreme Court as an "exaction" (unlawful extortion), etc. demanding to show cause any oath of office by the Commissioner, or who is sending any letters, the authority to violate the 4th, 5th, 1st (redress of greivance) and the State repetition of the same, impair the obligation of a contract between me and my boss, by a third party intervener (IRS), unlawful orders are bills of attainder (judgement without jury trial), IRS is not judicial branch (cant issue orders) and cannot make rules (not legislative branch) etc.

7) I file a 1 or 2 page FOIA, demanding to have the IRS show any documents purporting to act as an "assessment" or "notice of Lien", or "lien", or "notice of levy" or "Levy" ,and any factual evidence i am an employee of the Federal government, and the full legal names and address for service of process for anyone making any claims upon me.

8) in response to the FOIA i have a signed statement that the IRS does not have to "create" documents that would be required to answer my request and it "appears" you are challenging your responsibility to pay taxes.
I replied, thank you for the admission you have no assessments for the 10 years requested and that no liens or levys exist (even tho your garnishing on a bogus levy) and if in fact any factual evidence comes out in the future at any trial I will be charging you (IRS FOIA officer) with concealment 18 USC 2071, 1001 of material facts, have a nice day.

The kitchen sink re IRS taxation:
1) The IRS was never created by Congress and have no oath of office making them impersonating public officials (treasury officers).
2) the Congress has no jurisdiction to legislate laws that apply outside of Washington, D.C. (see my video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVooIVtYvnk I could add alot more cases if I chose to.
3) the United States of America is a fiction, does not exist, cant face my accuser, cant be an attorney for a fiction (imagine the questions to a subpeona'd US atty "when did you last meet with the Plaintiff?" "when did the Plaintiff sign a power of attorney to let you represent him?", " Do you admit your psychotic as you belief that your client is real but your cant produce them?"
4) the Plaintiff USA is not a "real party in interest", has no "standing" (personal injury or loss), and cannot ratify the commencement of the action against you. Neither will the Plaintiff ever answer a Bill of Particulars stating the form of law (commonLaw, Equity, Admiralty, or Maritime) and the accounting (showing the contract and monetary exchanges and ledger under GAAP) or criminal act (sans personal affidavit of a man witnessing you committing a crime).
All Taxation under the Revenue laws is based upon in rem (Admiralty) proceedings and Admiralty only applies on the sea (by SC case law) and cannot come onto land.
5) No one is a 14th amendment citizen of the United States of America as the required 3 elements being :1) a person (statutorily means a fiction- EJUSDEM GENERIS, 2) born or naturalized in the United States (where's that- UCC--Cal.COM §9307. (h) The United States is located in the District of Columbia.) and subject to the jurisdiction (living in D.C.) and why is that important, the territorial courts (US district courts only have jurisdiction over US citizens- SC caselaw). And what the hell is a Congressional declared "district" doing on California land? That started in 1789 with first judicial act of Congress creating "districts" instead of establishing Federal Courts in each "State" they created districts covering multiple states. And a denial of being a registered agent, or an agent or party to any Corporation, registered organization created by the birth certificate, might help as all taxation in based on involvement in corporate commerical activity (ad valorem).

If assaulted by the Attys for the USA on IRS issues I would certainly like to have some actual evidence of the IRS agents refusal to come with clean hands and their commission of fraud (silence is faud where there is a moral duty to speak (caselaw) instead of no written evidene. They are at war with the people and ignore each and every form of law and make the law as they go, concealing evidence, tampering with juries, tampering with grand juries, etc. The whole thing is based upon fraud and silence. With a written record they cannot claim ignorance.

marcel
01-18-18, 09:32 PM
Great; thank you. The exigent circumstance wasn't exactly clear to me from the garnishment template. And likely not to the clerk of court either. Unless you tell her/him. But perhaps that knowledge is irrelevant to them going about their job as clerk/keeper of the record.

lorne
02-03-20, 02:43 PM
Maybe the clerk won't issue summons and garnishment for fear of being charged with contumacy. And tried for unmasonic conduct.

David Merrill
02-04-20, 05:10 AM
That makes me wonder.

I found some research about George WASHINGTON and his oath. He added impromptu "So help me God."

As I better understand history, the meaning I put behind this utterance changes.

ag maniac
03-19-20, 01:04 PM
Interestingly enough, I just received the refund check for TY2016 last week.......4 months after paper filing a LM return.

The TY2015 refund is still nowhere to be seen.....no IRS letters, nothing.....just a fone convo 5/2016 threatening burial by FF notices and "you're refund is frozen".

And the TY2014 refund was timely.

Me thinks with their inconsistencies among us, they're shaking a tree seeing what fruit may drop.


After these many years, still chasing down the 2015 refund due & VOILA !! --> just got off the phone w/ an examiner who informed me a check WITH INTEREST [ about 1500 I reckon ] would be sent out Friday 3/20....will be avidly checking the mailbox next week......always nice to get a TREASURY CHEQUE in the mail

David Merrill
03-19-20, 02:08 PM
After these many years, still chasing down the 2015 refund due & VOILA !! --> just got off the phone w/ an examiner who informed me a check WITH INTEREST [ about 1500 I reckon ] would be sent out Friday 3/20....will be avidly checking the mailbox next week......always nice to get a TREASURY CHEQUE in the mail

That always gets me chuckling! Thanks for the report Ag.

lorne
10-27-20, 08:26 PM
Received muh refund check ... TY2019 lawful money tax filing ... WITH INTEREST.

6176

ag maniac
11-04-20, 02:24 AM
Received muh refund check ... TY2019 lawful money tax filing ... WITH INTEREST.

6176



Congrats Lorne !!!


https://i.pinimg.com/564x/ab/7c/54/ab7c54bd604b9060bfbd1af52789cb83.jpg

marcel
04-18-22, 01:40 PM
Reminder that 2021 lawful money tax returns are due today, April 18, 2022. Unless you're a mason. They mark time differently.

https://www.masonicworld.com/education/files/masoniccalender.htm

marcel
06-22-22, 01:16 AM
This year's Dirty Dozen list is out...
https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-warns-taxpayers-of-dirty-dozen-tax-scams-for-2022

Strangely it's only four items long.

David Merrill
06-22-22, 02:18 AM
This year's Dirty Dozen list is out...
https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-warns-taxpayers-of-dirty-dozen-tax-scams-for-2022

Strangely it's only four items long.

Thank you Marcel!

marcel
06-23-22, 03:17 AM
There's a dozen spread across six links https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/dirty-dozen

Here you go:

1. Use of Charitable Remainder Annuity Trust (CRAT) to Eliminate Taxable Gain. In this transaction, appreciated property is transferred to a CRAT. Taxpayers improperly claim the transfer of the appreciated assets to the CRAT in and of itself...

2. Maltese Pension Arrangements Misusing Treaty. In these transactions, U.S. citizens or U.S. residents attempt to avoid U.S. tax by making contributions to certain foreign individual retirement arrangements in Malta (or possibly other foreign countries). In these transactions, the individual typically lacks a local connection...

3. Puerto Rican Captive Insurance. In these transactions, U.S owners of closely held entities participate in a purported insurance arrangement with a Puerto Rican or other foreign corporation with cell arrangements or segregated asset plans in which the U.S. owner has a financial interest.

4. Monetized Installment Sales. These transactions involve the inappropriate use of the installment sale rules under section 453 by a seller who, in the year of a sale of property, effectively receives the sales proceeds through purported loans. In a typical transaction, the seller...

5. PANDEMIC RELATED
Economic Impact Payment and tax refund scams: Identity thieves who try to use Economic Impact Payments (EIPs), also known as stimulus payments, are a continuing threat to individuals. Similar to tax refund scams, taxpayers should watch out for these tell-tale signs of

Unemployment fraud leading to inaccurate taxpayer 1099-Gs: Because of the pandemic, many taxpayers lost their jobs and received unemployment compensation from their state. However, scammers also took advantage of the pandemic by filing fraudulent claims for...

Fake employment offers posted on social media: There have been many reports of fake job postings on social media. The pandemic created many newly unemployed people eager to seek new employment. These fake posts entice their victims to provide their personal financial info...

Fake charities that steal your money: Bogus charities are always a problem. They tend to be a bigger threat when there is a national crisis like the pandemic.
Taxpayers who give money or goods to a charity may be able to claim a deduction on their federal tax return. Taxpayers must donate to a qualified charity to get a deduction, not the beggar at the street corner with a cardboard sign.

6. UNSCRUPULOUS TAX COMPANIES
Ghost preparers: Although most tax preparers are ethical and trustworthy, taxpayers should be wary of preparers who won't sign the tax returns they prepare, often referred to as ghost preparers. For e-filed returns, the "ghost" will prepare the return, but refuse to digitally sign as the paid preparer.

Inflated refunds: Not signing a return is a red flag that the paid preparer may be looking to make a quick profit by promising a big refund or charging fees based on the size of the refund.

7. SUSPICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS
Text message scams: These scams are sent to taxpayers' smartphones and can reference things like COVID-19 and/or "stimulus payments." These messages often contain bogus links claiming to be IRS websites...
Email phishing scams: The IRS does not initiate contact with taxpayers by email to request personal or financial information. The IRS initiates most contacts through regular mail...
Phone scams: The IRS does not leave pre-recorded, urgent or threatening messages. In many variations of the phone scam, victims are told if they do not call back, a warrant will be issued for their arrest. Other verbal threats include law-enforcement agency intervention...

8. SPEAR PHISHING is an email scam that attempts to steal a tax professional's software preparation credentials. These thieves try to steal client data and tax preparers' identities in an attempt to file fraudulent tax returns for refunds.

9. Concealing Assets in Offshore Accounts and Improper Reporting of Digital Assets: The IRS remains focused on stopping tax avoidance by those who hide assets in offshore accounts and in accounts holding cryptocurrency or other digital assets.

10. High-income individuals who don't file tax returns: The IRS continues to focus on people who choose to ignore the law and not file a tax return, especially those individuals earning more than $100,000 a year.

11. Abusive Syndicated Conservation Easements: In syndicated conservation easements, promoters take a provision of the tax law allowing for conservation easements and twist it by using inflated appraisals of undeveloped land (or, for a few specialized ones, the facades of historic buildings), and by using partnership arrangements devoid of a ...

12. Abusive Micro-Captive Insurance Arrangements: In abusive "micro-captive" structures, promoters, accountants, or wealth planners persuade owners of closely held entities to participate in schemes that lack many of the attributes of insurance.

13. Lawful money redemption: A growing number of Americans believe they can simply redeem their income into "lawful money" - as allowed by The Federal Reserve Act - and therefore have no taxable income. This redeemed lawful money would thus be considered US notes in the form of FRNs, or, public money. As opposed to the private credit of the Federal Reserve whose use carries the excise tax more commonly known as the "federal income tax." As more people opt-out, this could be considered abusive to the bank and the fund, who rely on your money, as well as making the entire tax code of Title 26 ... wait. Hang on...

David Merrill
06-23-22, 07:38 PM
13. Lawful money redemption: A growing number of Americans believe they can simply redeem their income into "lawful money" - as allowed by The Federal Reserve Act - and therefore have no taxable income. This redeemed lawful money would thus be considered US notes in the form of FRNs, or, public money. As opposed to the private credit of the Federal Reserve whose use carries the excise tax more commonly known as the "federal income tax." As more people opt-out, this could be considered abusive to the bank and the fund, who rely on your money, as well as making the entire tax code of Title 26 ... wait. Hang on...

You had me for a moment!