I received a 3176C 'frivolous letter' for 2013 1040x Amended return with LM demand

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Joseph

Forget about substance. Money is what you trade with as a medium of exchange. Now quit on money and think TRUST. You must comprehend trusts. Who is underwriting the Money. Meaning the use of FRN's reflects a bond deposited with the Federal Reserve. So it is the United States bond which is underwriting the FRN. So in a sense the FRN is a promise to perform backed by US Bonds. And US Bonds are understood in substance internationally and in pledges domestically. Nevertheless there is equity understanding the notes in circulation.

The use of the notes is a benefit subject to an obligation. This is why I have endeavored so much to explore Uses, Trust, CQU and CQT.

Now when you get your mind around that then OF COURSE FRN's are taxable - or said another way - subject to the use fee. To argue against that is to deny the existence of the trust and the benefit of law.

Now the FRN is a dual capacity note. The greater always redeems the lesser. Therefore I don't care what you give me as long as it is legal tender. I fulfill the law when I make my demand for lawful money. Now is the law no more once I make my demand or does it still stand upon a future choice? Can it be said that I am forever without the IRS revenue agents just because I demand lawful money today? Perhaps I will do a deal tomorrow based on fractional reserve lending practices. Therefore there is always a presumption.

And since computers are the front line gate keepers these days, it may be a while before a living soul is reached.

The use bears the title TAXPAYER.

Regards,
MJ

---

Yes, the TRUST angle (and associated terms CQU, CQT). Been seeing that throughout other threads here and also by a respected poster on the CB's forum. It appears that the 'obligation' (or not) is very much the topic when it comes to the return of the estate (1040), as it has been referenced. It is true that the money itself is not taxable, but rather the "income" (gain, benefit, profit) as a result of some 'excise-taxable event'.

As I'm interpreting this, exercising a RILM demand ends the obligation of any benefit derived from FRN usage, based on the option of redeeming money solely with the U.S Treasury and not 'contracting' with a 3rd party (the Federal Reserve). If that is true, then it would appear that Govco or the Treasury is 'contracted/obligated' to repay the debt to the Fed from their own coffers and not 'me'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by itsmymoney

Yes, the TRUST angle (and associated terms CQU, CQT). Been seeing that throughout other threads here and also by a respected poster on the CB's forum. It appears that the 'obligation' (or not) is very much the topic when it comes to the return of the estate (1040), as it has been referenced. It is true that the money itself is not taxable, but rather the "income" (gain, benefit, profit) as a result of some 'excise-taxable event'.

As I'm interpreting this, exercising a RILM demand ends the obligation of any benefit derived from FRN usage, based on the option of redeeming money solely with the U.S Treasury and not 'contracting' with a 3rd party (the Federal Reserve). If that is true, then it would appear that Govco or the Treasury is 'contracted/obligated' to repay the debt to the Fed from their own coffers and not 'me'.

---

Have you considered that you still derive a benefit from the use of "demanded lawful money"? Are you the creator of these notes, whether "redeemed" or not? Do you own these notes? If not, who does?

Have you considered that said notes are backed by the "full faith and credit of the United States"? Where does United States acquire said "full faith and credit"? What backs this "full faith and credit"?

If United States does NOT live and breathe, it must use the energy and property of those who do as collateral, no? Did you pledge? Was it pledged for you? Did you acknowledge, agree with and/or execute completion of said pledge?

itsmymoney?

If it's truly "your money", then why are you concerned with avoiding a tax liability from a foreign entity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLBereans

Have you considered that you still derive a benefit from the use of "demanded lawful money"? Are you the creator of these notes, whether "redeemed" or not? Do you own these notes? If not, who does?

Have you considered that said notes are backed by the "full faith and credit of the United States"? Where does United States acquire said "full faith and credit"? What backs this "full faith and credit"?

If United States does NOT live and breathe, it must use the energy and property of those who do as collateral, no? Did you pledge? Was it pledged for you? Did you acknowledge, agree with and/or execute completion of said pledge?

itsmymoney?

If it's truly "your money", then why are you concerned with avoiding a tax liability from a foreign entity?

---

Do I not have a choice to avoid a private contract with the Fed? I admit that Obamacare seems to set a precedent otherwise, but then that 'law' is a farce against the Constitution regardless of what the SC decided (of whom they are becoming more biased for GovCo every day). If the law is to be honored then I DO have a choice to avoid the PRESUMPTION of a tax liability. I MUST be concerned about avoiding it because I am FORCED TO by the coercion of signing those presumptive-indentured-slave W-4 forms. See HJR-192 below for clarity.

https://iuvdeposit.wordpress.com/hjr-192/

IMO, all of their contracts rightly presume the use of FRNs.

It is OK for one to sign a W-4, just in case that presumption ever becomes ratified by one's future conduct/actions.

However, I ensure that my conduct always rebuts that presumption by continually writing my disclaimer on my checks and deposits slips in this manner:

Attachment 2533


This is how I got started, and it has worked successfully for 4 years now.

If it works to rebut a tax-liability contract, why should we think that it does not work for all other contracts that are based on FRN-usage?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug555

IMO, all of their contracts rightly presume the use of FRNs.

It is OK for one to sign a W-4, just in case that presumption ever becomes ratified by one's future conduct/actions.

However, I ensure that my conduct always rebuts that presumption by continually writing my disclaimer on my checks and deposits slips in this manner:

Attachment 2533


This is how I got started, and it has worked successfully for 4 years now.

If it works to rebut a tax-liability contract, why should we think that it does not work for all other contracts that are based on FRN-usage?

---

Doug, thanks for the comments and the links again. The '1040blogspot' is a true work of art and a great one-stop-shop for 1040 'stuff' in this regard.

BTW, I filed LM 'net' deduction for 2014 and received the 'net' deduction despite NOT attaching a supporting schedule. The adjacent area to the left of my Line 21 says, "Lawful Money (see http:/tinyurl.com/'the cloud folder of LM evidence')". I know the supporting schedule is necessary for the 'all transactions' method; but is it necessary for the 'net pay' method if I have disclosed the location of the evidence via the url on the 1040 itself? They processed it, but I'm wondering if I ever get a 'notice' for this filing whether the lack of a supporting schedule is significant going forward. I suppose that is opinion, but would like to hear yours.

Regards,
imm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by itsmymoney

Doug, thanks for the comments and the links again. The '1040blogspot' is a true work of art and a great one-stop-shop for 1040 'stuff' in this regard.

BTW, I filed LM 'net' deduction for 2014 and received the 'net' deduction despite NOT attaching a supporting schedule. The adjacent area to the left of my Line 21 says, "Lawful Money (see http:/tinyurl.com/'the cloud folder of LM evidence')". I know the supporting schedule is necessary for the 'all transactions' method; but is it necessary for the 'net pay' method if I have disclosed the location of the evidence via the url on the 1040 itself? They processed it, but I'm wondering if I ever get a 'notice' for this filing whether the lack of a supporting schedule is significant going forward. I suppose that is opinion, but would like to hear yours.

Regards,
imm

---

IMO, it would be better to be completely transparent and disclose all "evidence", to be proactive in rebutting all presumptions by creating admissible evidence on the record, and disclosing the same to interested parties in order to provide due notice and due process in exhausting all administrative remedies.

So, yes, I would create and upload a Supporting Schedule.

And thanks for the nice compliment! :)

BTW: I just got an "Insta-watch" Digital and DVD copy of "Battle Los Angeles" from Walmart at this link for only $5. Awesome!!! You can watch it immediately, and repeatedly from Walmart's VuDu digital link!

Attachment 2534

Also, be sure to read my "interpretation" of this movie at: "Battle Los Angeles - A Message for the Firstfruits!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug555

IMO, it would be better to be completely transparent and disclose all "evidence", to be proactive in rebutting all presumptions by creating admissible evidence on the record, and disclosing the same to interested parties in order to provide due notice and due process in exhausting all administrative remedies.

So, yes, I would create and upload a Supporting Schedule.

And thanks for the nice compliment! :)

BTW: I just got an "Insta-watch" Digital and DVD copy of "Battle Los Angeles" from Walmart at this link for only $5. Awesome!!! You can watch it immediately, and repeatedly from Walmart's VuDu digital link!

Attachment 2534

Also, be sure to read my "interpretation" of this movie at: "Battle Los Angeles - A Message for the Firstfruits!"

---

Ok, so the supporting schedule in this instance (TY 2014) is post-filing-and-refund but it shows good faith and accurate accounting. Is that the idea? Frankly, I don't think it wise to send the schedule separately to the IRS just to inform them that 'I missed a document in my cloud folder that you should see'. After all, they supposedly assessed the 1040 by looking at my cloud folder of LM evidence (which includes the original county-recorded demand). So regarding the transactions on the 2014 schedule, do I list all the transactions from the year-end W-2 showing only the net pay as a deduction in the LM deduction column? I think this is the basis for the full disclosure of taking only the net deduction, correct?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by itsmymoney

Ok, so the supporting schedule in this instance (TY 2014) is post-filing-and-refund but it shows good faith and accurate accounting. Is that the idea?
YES

Frankly, I don't think it wise to send the schedule separately to the IRS just to inform them that 'I missed a document in my cloud folder that you should see'.
I agree

After all, they supposedly assessed the 1040 by looking at my cloud folder of LM evidence (which includes the original county-recorded demand). So regarding the transactions on the 2014 schedule, do I list all the transactions from the year-end W-2 showing only the net pay as a deduction in the LM deduction column? I think this is the basis for the full disclosure of taking only the net deduction, correct?
I agree... I think there is an example of that type on StSC.

---

See blue comments above...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug555

See blue comments above...

---

Super. And thanks for the tip on the VUDU!!! Will set that up this week and download 'Battle' to Smart TV for viewing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by itsmymoney

Well folks, all is not well for me in LM land. Probably bit off more than I could chew, but regardless. Let me explain...

Filed a regular (late) 1040 for 2013 in December 2014. I had to file quickly for reasons I won't get into here. Then, since I had redeemed ALL of my checks in lawful money for 2013, I filed an amended 1040x including the lawful money deduction end of February 2015. Probably should have let it go, but there it is. Unfortunately today I received a 3176C letter stating that I have submitted a 'return or purported return claiming one or more frivolous positions'.

So I'm supposed to file a 'corrected return' within 30 days or they will start the collection process. But I've ALREADY filed an original return! And where does it say taking a lawful money deduction is 'frivolous'. And this coming off just receiving my LM REFUND for 2014!!! So surely mentioning the 2014 refund in my defense of 2013 will draw red flags for THAT return, no?

I'm beside myself. I'm considering calling them to explain that I have already filed a return. I can't file again, right? Where is their evidence that taking a LM deduction is 'frivolous'? They can surely DENY the amended refund, but to call it frivolous and punish me for another $5000?!! I've been down this road too many times with CTC returns and I DO NOT WANT TO PAY THAT AGAIN! At best I'd like to stalemate them into not collecting.

Any suggestions are welcome. I'm also considering contacting Marc Stevens as well, but I know David and others have great ideas here as well.
imm

itsmymoney

Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 3:34 pm

---

Notice how it doesn't say you "you filed a frivolous return"...there IS a difference. They won't admit to it though.