I do not recall sharing this letter here.
Update: The comic book from the NY Fed bank is not the attached pamphlet mentioned at the end of the 1981 Letter. I added that for explanation. - Just so you know...
Printable View
I do not recall sharing this letter here.
Update: The comic book from the NY Fed bank is not the attached pamphlet mentioned at the end of the 1981 Letter. I added that for explanation. - Just so you know...
Referring to bank notes..
"There was nothing illegal about using them, but on the other hand no law required anyone to accept them. Therefore they were not considered "lawful money." The term "lawful money" was reserved for money which the law did require people to accept, i.e., legal tender money."
"In 1933, Federal Reserve notes were made legal tender. See 31 USC 392, which was adopted in 1965 to replace 31 USC 462, enacted in 1933. Since that time Federal Reserve notes, as well as all other United States currency and coins, have been "lawful money".
So after reading this, I've come to the conclusion 12 USC 411 was really only applicable until 1933, when Federal reserve notes became legal tender. After that time, the FRNs became lawful money (legal tender which had to be accepted as payment). This doesn't take away the fact that they aren't money, they are credit. Notes to which excise and duties can be attached, the letter just brings a few things to light. At least if I'm reading it correctly.
Notice the use of "lawful money" vs. lawful money
The local bank is my agent.
The Federal Reserve is the government's agent.
I ask for "money" issued directly by the government (coin or USN's)
I demand it on my paycheck
My agent gets together with the governments agent, The Fed delivers coin to my bank. The bank gives me coin, the check is debited from the account holders (employer) account via the clearing house system.
The Fed now has a deficiency in coin.
The Fed forwards credit to the Treasury, The mint delivers more coin to the Fed and the loop is closed.
The mint creates dollar coins for approx 30cents a piece. The Fed pays for them Dollar for Dollar.
The mint gets approx 70 cents of seignorage (profit) for each coin it delivers to the Fed.
This profit can then pay down the debt (extinguish bonds) or be used for more gov spending.
Interestingly both documents are from 1984!
Thank you, I have been racking my head for years trying to boil all of this stuff down to something a lay person can understand. The beauty of this is we win and the gov wins. They get the seignorage for their purposes. I get my property right in my own labor back for my use, and if you choose coin the bank can still fractionally lend on it. Everyone gets a piece of the action. It will reconnect the grounding wire to the system. With nothing but bank credit in circulation the interest creates an impossible situation. It can't ever be paid back. With an effective way to generate and distribute debt free money now that impossible system becomes possible again.
It is deeper than just that. One of the primary reasons for an income tax is to limit the expansion of the circulating money supply. The Fed and the banks can create credit. This credit circulates as though it is money. Congress does not directly control this new "money" issuance. In order to control the total money supply they created the income tax to pull in some of this credit from circulation. Think about it. Congress spends whatever it wants and issues more bonds to cover the difference. They really don't need the tax revenue, they have the power to create money. States and localities need taxes as they cannot create money (except gold and silver).
The key court decision that solidified my knowledge of this is Veazie Bank v. Fenno 1869.
https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov...75.US.533.html
Read it again and again until you see it. Especially pay attention towards the end just before the dissenting opinion.
They use the Springer Case (1880) to justify their income tax on us. Springer is confusing, ambiguous, and a two part decision. The Springer decision dealing with wages was backed up by Veazie that came before it (Mr. Springer must have been paid with bank credit but I have not found where this is specifically called out in the court decision, I need what was presented to the court to figure that one out). However the Springer decision on dividends and profits was later challenged in Pollock and deemed unconstitutional. This was reversed with the 16th amendment.
Enter the Federal Reserve and we are all getting paid in bank credit......until you figure out the deception.
lawful to use as a legal tender would therefore be lawful money where lawful is an adjective.
Otherwise FRN's may be redeemed into Lawful Money on demand shows Lawful Money to be a compound noun. Any slick will try to twist the framework of the argument - like this: "It's lawful to use federal reserve notes today in our economy".
Finding 12 USC 411 is still on the books - then FRN's can be redeemed. End of story. And if they can be redeemed into something else, then they are not that special "something else". And no amount of obfuscation by the nachash can close the eyes of the wise.
A demand for "Lawful Money" is a claim for fair balances. An attempt to restore equity. Since the debtor is slave to the lender what of law and equity of a slave. Therefore the slave - serf is always 12(b)(6) - ed
I'm not sure how more well it can be hidden in plain site. The drawee on most any payroll check is the address. If you comprehend how checks (sic drafts) are laid out from a commercial law or customary perspective the "to" or "on" or "against" position is where the address usually is on a paycheck. The drawer/drawers is/are usually at the top. The drawee is usually a bank. And if in the district.....
http://www.rdsbiz.net/payrolliMages/...ll%20check.jpg
An enticing invitation to endorse private credit or...to accept it as the drawee? Remember, with a payroll check every two weeks or so some kind of report goes out to the IRS and the SSA to make sure the instrument will be a perfect match to the bi-weekly reports to the IRS and the SSA.
http://www.alumni.ucr.edu/view.image?Id=460
What is lawful or legal in a Federal Reserve district might be neither lawful nor legal elsewhere. The jurisdictional game is probably more sneakily hiding in the details.Quote:
...lawful money
Wow. This thread is awesome. Allodial, what you just shared is something I am dealing with, right now. Everything is direct deposit where I "work". Since the EMPLOYER (university) is FEDERALLY funded (in some kind of capacity), I just assumed the school has its contracts with the govt.
Now, I just have to figure out exactly how to lawfully refuse THEIR invitation. I am still going through all of the info y'all are sharing here (in the forum), while also digesting it fully (I am astounded how you can take apart stuff, like this letter, and point out what certain words/terms REALLY mean - I am actually curious as to where I can learn that language). I have read enough that I will be giving NOTICE AND DEMAND to "my" bank by the end of December and getting a stamp. What I would like to figure out is what I have to do, as far as proper notice to "my" EMPLOYER.
As I had shared in the "Introductions" thread(s), my ignorance has guided me down the wrong path. I neglected to file an income tax return last year, because of the erroneous assumption that my labor was not taxable (yada yada yada) and that the IRS can send me what they think I owe THEM (in invoice / bill). I am correcting that and will not only file the return (unfortunately late, so I will probably get penalized) but also file for 2014. Though I was familiar with lawful money, I was "doing it wrong" (simply writing on the back of checks - REDEEM IN REAL LAWFUL MONEY ONLY. NO FEDERAL RESERVES NOTES - yeah, pretty dumb of me).
Now that I am amongst fellow beings who know what is really factual truth (not misinformation, which I was getting in other groups), I am confident and willing to resolve my dumb mistakes. I appreciate it. ~ DJ Lamb
Here is what I have done, and it avoids "upsetting" the Banks and Employers. This has worked for 3 years.
See below example of a Deposit Slip. I also handwrite (more powerful than stamps) this demand under may name and address on all my checks. This creates a "preponderance of evidence". I do not do restrictive endorsements on any of their checks. I believe the back side of all checks are on their private side.... in their realm.Quote:
“lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411 and 95a(2)“
Using this exact wording above enables one to provide probable cause and justification for listing all transactions on a 1040 SUPPORTING SCHEDULE that have been presumed to be using FRNs (out-going amounts of LAWFUL money excluded). By doing so in good faith reliance thereon, one is provided immunity from liability in any court action, per 12 USC95a(2).
Attachment 2075
Your job is only to make a substantive record of the demand. That is all 12 USC 411 requires. Do NOT interfere with the banks' or the employers' realm and duties.
IMO, as long as you have NON-HEARSAY EVIDENCE (FRE 803,#6.B), recorded by the bank in their normal course of business, you are all set for proving your demands for lawful money for all transactions.
Quote:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803
Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay
The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness:
...
(6) Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. A record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis if:
(A) the record was made at or near the time by — or from information transmitted by — someone with knowledge;
(B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit;
(C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity;
(D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness, or by a certification that complies with Rule 902(11) or (12) or with a statute permitting certification; and
(E) neither the opponent does not show that the source of information nor or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.
Doug555,
Like djlamb, I am considering filing 1040 for first time in 4 years. I have been restricting my signature and Redeeming in Lawful Money (RILF) on my paychecks/deposit slips since January 2013, however I have not added the '95a(2)' language (only 12 USC 411). Around that time I sent a Notice and Demand to the US Treasury in DC, however I have not done so with my local bank. I would be shocked if there is NO ONE at my local bank who is not 'in the know' about Redeeming in Lawful Money, but this is possible. In other words, in reviewing the restricted signature with the novation of 12 USC 411 wouldn't the question be raised internally at that bank such as, 'what is this language on the back of these checks?'. Another caveat is that I was very strict in also stamping ATM withdrawals and POS purchases for a long time, but not as much in the past 2 months - intermittently doing so.
Questions:
1) How much does not sending 'Notice and Demand' to my local bank 'hurt me'? As stated, Treasury was notified (recorded it in local Recorder's office), and I have been 100% consistent in novating all deposits into my local bank account. I have all those checks/deposit slips saved as evidence.
2) Once the deposits were RILF into my account, is it absolutely necessary to RILF for every withdrawal from that account?
3) I have been SEVERELY punished in 6702 penalties by Auntie for 2008 for my CTC filing for that year. I feel I will come under greater scrutiny from Auntie if filing 1040 with an offset for RILF. In other words, 'Oh, this guy is trying to "evade his taxes" again. Let's go after him'. Would anyone agree that I am at greater risk for issues with Auntie?
4) From the info I have provided, what do I need to do going forward?
Thank you all for this great site and these Forums.
Sincerely,
IMM
The burden of proof is the imperative on a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will shift the conclusion away from the default position to one's own position.Quote:
No. I just do it for "preponderance of evidence" tactic.
Preponderance of Evidence. A standard of proof that must be met by a plaintiff if he or she is to win a civil action. In a civil case, the plaintiff has the burden of ...
Superiority in weight of an evidence that is more convincing (even if minimally) than the evidence presented by the other party. In civil cases, the jury is ...
Burden of Proof Vs. Preponderance of Evidence. Civil and criminal litigation use different standards for finding a defendant responsible for the charge. While both ...
Since the IRS are the ones not accepting the law in 12USC411 where is there Preponderance of Evidence. Milam v. U.S. is really starting to smell.
My responses and follow-up questions in RED. Thank you...
Quote:
Doug555,
Like djlamb, I am considering filing 1040 for first time in 4 years. I have been restricting my signature and Redeeming in Lawful Money (RILF) on my paychecks/deposit slips since January 2013, however I have not added the '95a(2)' language (only 12 USC 411). Around that time I sent a Notice and Demand to the US Treasury in DC, however I have not done so with my local bank. I would be shocked if there is NO ONE at my local bank who is not 'in the know' about Redeeming in Lawful Money, but this is possible. In other words, in reviewing the restricted signature with the novation of 12 USC 411 wouldn't the question be raised internally at that bank such as, 'what is this language on the back of these checks?'. Another caveat is that I was very strict in also stamping ATM withdrawals and POS purchases for a long time, but not as much in the past 2 months - intermittently doing so.
Questions:
1) How much does not sending 'Notice and Demand' to my local bank 'hurt me'? As stated, Treasury was notified (recorded it in local Recorder's office), and I have been 100% consistent in novating all deposits into my local bank account. I have all those checks/deposit slips saved as evidence.
I have saved my PDF records on a Google Drive, and reference that location on my 1040 so they can easily verify my banking demands. Not sending the N&D should not hurt you. IMO, it does not constitute non-hearsay evidence anyways.
IMM: Ok, sigh of relief, somewhat. So scan the evidence and then upload to Google Drive - indicate that link location on 1040 aside the Line 21 offset?
2) Once the deposits were RILF into my account, is it absolutely necessary to RILF for every withdrawal from that account?
No. I just do it for "preponderance of evidence" tactic.
IMM: I will make it a point to reinforce this practice going forward.
3) I have been SEVERELY punished in 6702 penalties by Auntie for 2008 for my CTC filing for that year. I feel I will come under greater scrutiny from Auntie if filing 1040 with an offset for RILF. In other words, 'Oh, this guy is trying to "evade his taxes" again. Let's go after him'. Would anyone agree that I am at greater risk for issues with Auntie?
I was also penalized over past years non/filings. I had to file for all past years and was forced to tender FRNs to "pay" all of that off by establishing an installment plan with the IRS. During that time, I did file 1040s with the lawful money deduction on line 21, and it was honored without repercussions.
IMM: Interesting that STSC posters use the term, "usage fee". Through much research of the Internal Revenue Manual and 6209 document, a poster on LHF discovered that the 6702 'frivolous return' penalty was/is actually recorded in your IMF records as a 'user fee'. There are controls on the software that prevent a VALID 6702 penalty from being entered into the Individual Tax Class 2 module, thus they enter it as a Miscellaneous Penalty into the IMF '55' penalty module. I believe this module was specifically created for 'CTC' filers. Negative 'innovation' for sure.
Regarding my years 2011-2013, I filled out a 'faux return' with only the personal deductions for each year and did not 'owe them any money'. It was either even or a 'refund' due. I suspect if I file these 'late' they will hit me with the late filing penalty, so forget the 'refund'. But this is a small price to pay for getting these returns in order (according to 'them') and moving forward. However, for 2013, I believe I only have a couple of paychecks that were NOT novated (need to check). So for 2013, can I still file RILF for all checks EXCEPT for those couple of paychecks that were not novated?
4) From the info I have provided, what do I need to do going forward?
I would set up an installment plan with IRS ASAP to pay off past taxes due. I also tendered several "indorsed bills" but they were never honored... but they also were never returned. Perhaps the http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/ approach is worth a try to truly PAY these obligations that are legitimate since you did endorse and use FRNs and thereby incurred their "usage fee" known as the Income Tax.
Then study my website at: http://1040relief.blogspot.com/ and the 1040 Help comprehensive post here on StSC.
However, there may be BIG CHANGES occurring that will solve your IRS problems - see http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2014/...s-now-100.html
IMM: I will consider installment if necessary. As I mentioned in 3), I will need to file and see what the fallout is for 2011-2013, potentially filing with partial or full RILF for 2013 as mentioned above. I will most certainly check out your website and the other link as well.
I have another question that I posed on the CB site that I will pose here at STSC in a new topic, regarding the 'redeeming' language within 12 USC 411.
Though I truly see and believe the law behind RILF and the success as such, I'm still nervous, to say the least. However, I thank you Doug555 and everyone else on this great Forum for your knowledge-sharing and support. I feel less nervous as a result.
I look forward to your responses to the above. Grateful, IMM.
Good point and research.Quote:
No. I just do it for "preponderance of evidence" tactic.
In David's "Diminished Money counterclaim", one is the Plaintiff in that Civil Action.
Quote:
Doug555,
Like djlamb, I am considering filing 1040 for first time in 4 years. I have been restricting my signature and Redeeming in Lawful Money (RILF) on my paychecks/deposit slips since January 2013, however I have not added the '95a(2)' language (only 12 USC 411). Around that time I sent a Notice and Demand to the US Treasury in DC, however I have not done so with my local bank. I would be shocked if there is NO ONE at my local bank who is not 'in the know' about Redeeming in Lawful Money, but this is possible. In other words, in reviewing the restricted signature with the novation of 12 USC 411 wouldn't the question be raised internally at that bank such as, 'what is this language on the back of these checks?'. Another caveat is that I was very strict in also stamping ATM withdrawals and POS purchases for a long time, but not as much in the past 2 months - intermittently doing so.
Questions:
1) How much does not sending 'Notice and Demand' to my local bank 'hurt me'? As stated, Treasury was notified (recorded it in local Recorder's office), and I have been 100% consistent in novating all deposits into my local bank account. I have all those checks/deposit slips saved as evidence.
Doug: I have saved my PDF records on a Google Drive, and reference that location on my 1040 so they can easily verify my banking demands. Not sending the N&D should not hurt you. IMO, it does not constitute non-hearsay evidence anyways.
IMM: Ok, sigh of relief, somewhat. So scan the evidence and then upload to Google Drive - indicate that link location on 1040 aside the Line 21 offset?
Doug: 1040, Line 21 has "See Attached" on it right after its description. The TaxACT Program then create a separate schedule that has Lines 1 & 2 available for your use. See example below. The Line 21 amount will always have a preceding dash to indicate a negative amount of "Other income", and it should always be greater than your Gross Income amount, because of adding in the "withholding" transactions amounts that were legitimately presumed by the employer to be provided in the default FRN currency.
Attachment 2076
2) Once the deposits were RILF into my account, is it absolutely necessary to RILF for every withdrawal from that account?
Doug: No. I just do it for "preponderance of evidence" tactic.
IMM: I will make it a point to reinforce this practice going forward.
3) I have been SEVERELY punished in 6702 penalties by Auntie for 2008 for my CTC filing for that year. I feel I will come under greater scrutiny from Auntie if filing 1040 with an offset for RILF. In other words, 'Oh, this guy is trying to "evade his taxes" again. Let's go after him'. Would anyone agree that I am at greater risk for issues with Auntie?
Doug: I was also penalized over past years non/filings. I had to file for all past years and was forced to tender FRNs to "pay" all of that off by establishing an installment plan with the IRS. During that time, I did file 1040s with the lawful money deduction on line 21, and it was honored without repercussions.
IMM: Interesting that STSC posters use the term, "usage fee". Through much research of the Internal Revenue Manual and 6209 document, a poster on LHF discovered that the 6702 'frivolous return' penalty was/is actually recorded in your IMF records as a 'user fee'. There are controls on the software that prevent a VALID 6702 penalty from being entered into the Individual Tax Class 2 module, thus they enter it as a Miscellaneous Penalty into the IMF '55' penalty module. I believe this module was specifically created for 'CTC' filers. Negative 'innovation' for sure.
Regarding my years 2011-2013, I filled out a 'faux return' with only the personal deductions for each year and did not 'owe them any money'. It was either even or a 'refund' due. I suspect if I file these 'late' they will hit me with the late filing penalty, so forget the 'refund'. But this is a small price to pay for getting these returns in order (according to 'them') and moving forward. However, for 2013, I believe I only have a couple of paychecks that were NOT novated (need to check). So for 2013, can I still file RILF for all checks EXCEPT for those couple of paychecks that were not novated?
Doug: YES, definitely. See split-year example here.
4) From the info I have provided, what do I need to do going forward?
Doug: I would set up an installment plan with IRS ASAP to pay off past taxes due. I also tendered several "indorsed bills" but they were never honored... but they also were never returned. Perhaps the http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/ approach is worth a try to truly PAY these obligations that are legitimate since you did endorse and use FRNs and thereby incurred their "usage fee" known as the Income Tax.
Then study my website at: http://1040relief.blogspot.com/ and the 1040 Help comprehensive post here on StSC.
However, there may be BIG CHANGES occurring that will solve your IRS problems - see http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2014/...s-now-100.html
IMM: I will consider installment if necessary. As I mentioned in 3), I will need to file and see what the fallout is for 2011-2013, potentially filing with partial or full RILF for 2013 as mentioned above. I will most certainly check out your website and the other link as well.
I have another question that I posed on the CB site that I will pose here at STSC in a new topic, regarding the 'redeeming' language within 12 USC 411.
Though I truly see and believe the law behind RILF and the success as such, I'm still nervous, to say the least. However, I thank you Doug555 and everyone else on this great Forum for your knowledge-sharing and support. I feel less nervous as a result.
I look forward to your responses to the above. Grateful, IMM.
See blue replies above... and thanks for your good questions.
It is great that David provides this forum because I am sure many others will have similar circumstances and questions, and will be able to profit from this exchange here.
And it is also important to avoid any bad precedents from being set by this group when others here have already paved the way successfully.
I would tend to recommend getting hold of a Black's Law Dictionary, Bouvier's Law Dictionary, a Balllentine's Law Dictionary and an old 1700s/1800s Giles Jacob law dictionary online and consider that there are at least two English languages: 'common speak' and 'official'. Also the mindset of helping servants out or keeping them in line might be more fruitful and healthy than us/me vs them theater of war mindset. To be a good master might take some diligent study and rightly dividing of the word of truth.
A green contract law hornbook is a nice quite helpful start. I'd be sure to cover and the basics of contract formation, remedies and recourse, requirements for parties at the least. IMHO a book like this for only $5.96--is like free gold coins like forever. Consider that checks, promissory notes and bonds are types of contracts.
Thanks allodial! I found this one helpful as well. Negotiable Instruments and Check Collection
Doug555,
Thank you for the 1040 example and all other info! However, I'm a little confused about the 1040 example and the overall 'math'. Are we conceding SS/Med withholding? Just to be sure I'm understanding this, I'd like to present numbers from one of my W-2 Forms and a simple filing, asking if you can confirm I am 'getting it'. PLEASE correct or instruct me where applicable...
"wages": 46,000 Fed 'income' tax withheld: 6200 FICA (SS/Med) withheld: 2600 standard + personal exemption: 10,000
The following is an extra step of calculating AGI just to illustrate (if correct) my understanding of the the logic behind the RILM deduction...
Adjusted Gross Income before RILM deduction: 36,000 (46,000 Gross Income - 10,000 exemptions)
Line 21 "Other income": -42,200 (AGI RILM of 36,000 + 'income' tax withheld RILM of 6200) <- in reality, ALL of the Gross Income (46K) was RILM.
Adjusted Gross Income after RILM deduction: -6200 (36,000 AGI minus -42,200 RILM)
Taxable Income: 0 Overpayment/Refund: 6200
Basically, this would refund all 'income' withholding and concede FICA because FICA can be perceived as a potential Federal privilege and also does not fall under Subtitle A 'income' tax. Again, please correct/instruct where applicable, and thank you for your patience and knowledge sharing!
Respectfully,
IMM
Quote:
Doug555,
Like djlamb, I am considering filing 1040 for first time in 4 years. I have been restricting my signature and Redeeming in Lawful Money (RILF) on my paychecks/deposit slips since January 2013, however I have not added the '95a(2)' language (only 12 USC 411). Around that time I sent a Notice and Demand to the US Treasury in DC, however I have not done so with my local bank. I would be shocked if there is NO ONE at my local bank who is not 'in the know' about Redeeming in Lawful Money, but this is possible. In other words, in reviewing the restricted signature with the novation of 12 USC 411 wouldn't the question be raised internally at that bank such as, 'what is this language on the back of these checks?'. Another caveat is that I was very strict in also stamping ATM withdrawals and POS purchases for a long time, but not as much in the past 2 months - intermittently doing so.
Questions:
1) How much does not sending 'Notice and Demand' to my local bank 'hurt me'? As stated, Treasury was notified (recorded it in local Recorder's office), and I have been 100% consistent in novating all deposits into my local bank account. I have all those checks/deposit slips saved as evidence.
Doug: I have saved my PDF records on a Google Drive, and reference that location on my 1040 so they can easily verify my banking demands. Not sending the N&D should not hurt you. IMO, it does not constitute non-hearsay evidence anyways.
IMM: Ok, sigh of relief, somewhat. So scan the evidence and then upload to Google Drive - indicate that link location on 1040 aside the Line 21 offset?
Doug: 1040, Line 21 has "See Attached" on it right after its description. The TaxACT Program then create a separate schedule that has Lines 1 & 2 available for your use. See example below. The Line 21 amount will always have a preceding dash to indicate a negative amount of "Other income", and it should always be greater than your Gross Income amount, because of adding in the "withholding" transactions amounts that were legitimately presumed by the employer to be provided in the default FRN currency.
2) Once the deposits were RILF into my account, is it absolutely necessary to RILF for every withdrawal from that account?
Doug: No. I just do it for "preponderance of evidence" tactic.
IMM: I will make it a point to reinforce this practice going forward.
3) I have been SEVERELY punished in 6702 penalties by Auntie for 2008 for my CTC filing for that year. I feel I will come under greater scrutiny from Auntie if filing 1040 with an offset for RILF. In other words, 'Oh, this guy is trying to "evade his taxes" again. Let's go after him'. Would anyone agree that I am at greater risk for issues with Auntie?
Doug: I was also penalized over past years non/filings. I had to file for all past years and was forced to tender FRNs to "pay" all of that off by establishing an installment plan with the IRS. During that time, I did file 1040s with the lawful money deduction on line 21, and it was honored without repercussions.
IMM: Interesting that STSC posters use the term, "usage fee". Through much research of the Internal Revenue Manual and 6209 document, a poster on LHF discovered that the 6702 'frivolous return' penalty was/is actually recorded in your IMF records as a 'user fee'. There are controls on the software that prevent a VALID 6702 penalty from being entered into the Individual Tax Class 2 module, thus they enter it as a Miscellaneous Penalty into the IMF '55' penalty module. I believe this module was specifically created for 'CTC' filers. Negative 'innovation' for sure.
Regarding my years 2011-2013, I filled out a 'faux return' with only the personal deductions for each year and did not 'owe them any money'. It was either even or a 'refund' due. I suspect if I file these 'late' they will hit me with the late filing penalty, so forget the 'refund'. But this is a small price to pay for getting these returns in order (according to 'them') and moving forward. However, for 2013, I believe I only have a couple of paychecks that were NOT novated (need to check). So for 2013, can I still file RILF for all checks EXCEPT for those couple of paychecks that were not novated?
Doug: YES, definitely. See split-year example here.
4) From the info I have provided, what do I need to do going forward?
Doug: I would set up an installment plan with IRS ASAP to pay off past taxes due. I also tendered several "indorsed bills" but they were never honored... but they also were never returned. Perhaps the http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/ approach is worth a try to truly PAY these obligations that are legitimate since you did endorse and use FRNs and thereby incurred their "usage fee" known as the Income Tax.
Then study my website at: http://1040relief.blogspot.com/ and the 1040 Help comprehensive post here on StSC.
However, there may be BIG CHANGES occurring that will solve your IRS problems - see http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2014/...s-now-100.html
IMM: I will consider installment if necessary. As I mentioned in 3), I will need to file and see what the fallout is for 2011-2013, potentially filing with partial or full RILF for 2013 as mentioned above. I will most certainly check out your website and the other link as well.
I have another question that I posed on the CB site that I will pose here at STSC in a new topic, regarding the 'redeeming' language within 12 USC 411.
Though I truly see and believe the law behind RILF and the success as such, I'm still nervous, to say the least. However, I thank you Doug555 and everyone else on this great Forum for your knowledge-sharing and support. I feel less nervous as a result.
I look forward to your responses to the above. Grateful, IMM.
Originally Posted by itsmymoney
My responses and follow-up questions in RED. Thank you...
See blue replies above... and thanks for your good questions.
It is great that David provides this forum because I am sure many others will have similar circumstances and questions, and will be able to profit from this exchange here.
And it is also important to avoid any bad precedents from being set by this group when others here have already paved the way successfully.
I cannot follow your calculations... sorry. Just do 1040 as you normally would. Just use Line 21 to include "Other Income" which is the total amount from its attached Schedule.
See post10366 for an example of this Schedule.
Note thereon that Regular & Overtime Pay amounts are Gross amounts. You MUST use your payroll register printouts to do this schedule... not the W2 amounts. Otherwise you cannot pro-rate the amounts correctly.
Please understand: You are NOT getting back any withheld amounts except the Federal Income Tax Withheld (FITW). All the other withheld amounts are valid amounts you must pay for the services received therefrom by contract agreement, now or in the future (Ex: Social Security).
The Online version TaxACT make the 1040 Filing VERY EASY & VERY AFFORDABLE!!! I recommend also getting the Audit Protection package [called: Tax Audit Defense].
Doug555,
No problem. I think my example and comment are basically what you stated above. I will check out the TaxACT software (thanks for initiating me to this tool!).
Just a couple more items, please...
What are the 'payroll register printouts'? Is this something I need to request from company? Only other question I have is, I noticed a couple different versions of the 'Supporting Schedule for the 1040'. One example appeared to be an IRS Form and your 'post10366' link appears to be a 'home-grown' document. If the 'post10366' doc is in fact, 'home-grown' (not an IRS Form), I'm assuming the 'Form' does not matter - i.e. it's the content and reporting that counts. If I am mistaken, please clarify if you would, please. Most grateful for your help.
IMM
Think of the "S" in GST.Quote:
...FICA...
I found this one helpful as well. Lawful Income Tax Avoidance for the Qualified Wages and Salaries of Natural Persons by Richard C. DiMare
Yes, I've read the book.
"The current income tax .. is an avoidable .. regulatory excise tax on the incoming transfer of Federal Reserve notes and workers are not informed that they have an alternative right to have their labor taxed as property under the Constitution's two Direct Tax Clauses."
and since there are no direct taxes in effect, this worker owes no income tax.
Direct taxes at the federal level has only been assessed on two objects: real estate and slaves.
Springer v. United States (1880).
I must correct that: Giles Jacob. He was associated with one of the best law dictionaries evarr.
Related: A new law-dictionary: containing, the interpretation and definition of words and terms used in the law: and also the whole law, and the practice thereof, under all the heads and titles of the same (1739)
I don't think so. Here's a direct tax from 1798. http://ctcwarrior.com/lawfuldirecttax.pdf
SPRINGER v. U S, 102 U.S. 586 (1880)Quote:
It will thus be seen that whenever the government has imposed a tax which it recognized as a direct tax, it has never been applied to any objects but real estate and slaves.
Re: slave - perhaps see also employee, servant.
Attachment 2086
Doug, I'm starting to create my supporting schedule based on one of the example templates, but I'm confused. My schedule lays out every entry on the year-end payroll register (see below w/o amounts), with a corresponding column for any Lawful Money reduction as applicable to each (not shown below). If I may ask some questions to clear this up for me, please:Quote:
Doug: 1040, Line 21 has "See Attached" on it right after its description. The TaxACT Program then create a separate schedule that has Lines 1 & 2 available for your use. See example below. The Line 21 amount will always have a preceding dash to indicate a negative amount of "Other income", and it should always be greater than your Gross Income amount, because of adding in the "withholding" transactions amounts that were legitimately presumed by the employer to be provided in the default FRN currency.
1) One Lawful Money reduction would be the total amount of all the deposits made in Lawful Money, correct? In my case this is virtually the same amount as the Net Pay (I missed literally one check - long story).
2) The Fed Withholding is your Gross Pay withheld towards a tax. However, if you redeemed all or virtually all of the Net Pay then the Fed Withholding is not applicable in that sense (a tax). So can some/all of Fed Withholding be added as an offset? See 3 below relative to this...
3) Regarding the text I bolded in your quote above, I believe you are saying that "Other Income" (in this simple example) would be (Net Pay + Fed Withholding). I believe you are saying that "Other Income" should be greater than 'Gross Pay'; or 'Adjusted Gross Income'? How can that be, with all the other non-redeemable deductions in play? Just not seeing it clearly yet.
Sorry for my confusion. This is my first-time RILM and I'm trying to comprehend it overall and relative to filling out the 1040. Any help or clarification is most appreciated.
Sincerely,
IMM
Payroll Register entries...
Gross Pay Regular
Gross Pay OT
Gross Pay Bonus
Net Pay
Fed Withholding Tax
SS Withholding Tax
Medicare Tax
State Withholding Tax
Attachment 2087
See above comments.
There are no NET amounts in above Schedule.
All amounts are from Payroll Register in YTD amounts.
Column 1 minus column 2 = column 3, since the LM demand started about mid-September in this example.