No Income Tax paid - 3 years and counting.

I've been asked to share more details of my success. I'll lay out the facts and leave the reader to their own spin or interpretation. I should preface by stating that in 2008 I was just an average "sheeple" - asleep to much of what's discussed on this website. But I did start to wake up when our leaders nearly fell over themselves to hand $800 billion over to Wall Street. I started digging into our monetary system, money & banking*, learned that when I signed for a mortgage, the bank didn't lend me other depositors money, nor money sitting in the bank, but that my signature on the note created new currency for the bank to lend me(!). This led me to the subject of taxation and Pete HENDRICKSON's Cracking the Code.

I have worked for myself many years now usually receiving a Form 1099 at year-end from clients and I would pay estimated taxes. After Pete's book showed the tax code to be largely smoke & mirrors, that my consent was needed, and that the 1099 creates a presumption of income under the Revenue Acts, etc. I managed to get the flow of 1099s to nearly stop, after all I'm not a statutory trade or business. For 2008 I filed a fed tax return showing the true amount of income (less than a thousand, but of course made plenty of lawful money) and received full refunds, federal & state. (check sanitized/altered to erase identity). The 1099s I received thereafter were below the statutory exemption amount for income, thus no estimated payments, no withholding, & no need to file, and I have not filed returns thereafter. I also learned about lawful money from David Merrill and began restrictively endorsing checks pursuant to 12 USC 411 (I didn't fully believe at first but since it cost nothing, what the hell). I did not amend prior years, file 1040x, nor Form 4852. I have no legal issues and have not heard a peep from the IRS.

You are now free to spin those facts.
_______________
* The Creature from Jekyll Island

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnnyCash

I have worked for myself many years now usually receiving a Form 1099 at year-end from clients and I would pay estimated taxes. After Pete's book showed the tax code to be largely smoke & mirrors, that my consent was needed, and that the 1099 creates a presumption of income under the Revenue Acts, etc. I managed to get the flow of 1099s to nearly stop, after all I'm not a statutory trade or business. [/URL]

---

Can you expound on what you did to make the 1099's stop?

Sure. Let's just say I have a certain skill set and ... I was convinced the Form 1099 was not appropriate, should not be filed in connection with payments between the client & I for that skill set. Form 1099 is to be used for trade or business reporting only. Trade or Business has a narrow definition in the tax code: The term "trade or business" includes the performance of the functions of a public office. Nothing else is listed or included. I do not perform the functions of a public office. For background see Pete's chapter Crafting a Trade or Business: A Guide For The Self-Employed starting at page 82. I would expand Pete's definition of federal to include Federal Reserve credit (in contradistinction to lawful money - US Notes in the form of FRNs). I think we all agree the Tax is an excise on Federal activity/stuff and if I'm not endorsing private credit (of the Fed Reserve) then where is the federal connection or nexus? There isn't any; I'm exercising my natural right to labor & trade without excise. So it was just a matter of convincing the client, no 1099. File the 1099 and the deal's off, you don't get the skill set. Breach of contract.

But even if the client issues a 1099 (to the IRS & you) I think you could stand your ground and prevail - although it might involve a contest. Ultimately the 1099 is third-party hearsay. You have a right to be heard, your consent is required. You, as the recipient of clients money, have superior facts & knowledge as to the exact nature of the payments. Why should the authorities place greater weight on the client's determination? Especially when you can provide evidence of redeemed Federal Reserve credit (lawful money). In fact, the Portillo case supports this:

Quote:

---

“[T]he Commissioner's determination that Portillo had received unreported income of $24,505 from Navarro was arbitrary. The Commissioner's determination was based solely on a Form 1099 Navarro sent to the I.R.S. indicating that he paid Portillo $24,505 more than Portillo had reported on his return. The Commissioner merely matched Navarro's Form 1099 with Portillo's Form 1040 and arbitrarily decided to attribute veracity to Navarro and assume that Portillo's Form 1040 was false.”

"Therefore, the judgment below regarding unreported income must be reversed."

---

Portillo v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Fifth Circuit, 932 F.2d 1128 (1991)
http://www.losthorizons.com/newsarchive.htm

JohnnyCash,

Be careful with how you interpret tax code and be aware of how the courts interpret. Idaho State Tax Commision published this decision. Idaho Code relies on Internal Revenue Code.

"The taxpayer argued the amounts reported on the Forms 1099-MISC were incorrectly
shown as nonemployee compensation because this alleges he was in a trade or business, and a
trade or business is defined by IRC section 7701(a)(26) as the performance of the functions of a
public office. The taxpayer stated neither he nor the payers identified on the Forms 1099 were
involved in the performance of the functions of a public office.

In his interpretation of IRC section 7701(a)(26), the taxpayer misses a key component of
that section’s definition of the term “trade or business.” Subpart (26) states, “The term ‘trade or
business’ includes the performance of the functions of a public office.” This subpart does not
state that a trade or business is exclusively the performance of the functions of a public office. It
states it includes the performance of the functions of a public office. In fact, IRC section 7701(c)
defines the terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in the IRC. It
states that the terms includes and including shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise
within the meaning of the term defined. Therefore, the term trade or business also includes those
things generally attributable to the words trade and business.

Regardless of whether the taxpayer believes the services provided to the payers listed on
the Forms 1099-MISC constitutes or comes up to the level of a trade or business, the taxpayer
received compensation or remuneration for his services. According to IRC section 61, that
DECISION - 4
[Redacted] compensation is part of the taxpayer’s gross income."

http://tax.idaho.gov/decisions/0720157.pdf

31 USC 3124 - Sec. 3124. Exemption from taxation

(a) Stocks and obligations of the United States Government are exempt from taxation by a State or political subdivision of a State.

The exemption applies to each form of taxation that would require the obligation, the interest on the obligation, or both, to be considered in computing a tax, except - (1) a nondiscriminatory franchise tax or another nonproperty tax instead of a franchise tax, imposed on a corporation; and (2) an estate or inheritance tax. (b) The tax status of interest on obligations and dividends, earnings, or other income from evidences of ownership issued by the Government or an agency and the tax treatment of gain and loss from the disposition of those obligations and evidences of ownership is decided under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). An obligation that the Federal Housing Administration had agreed, under a contract made before March 1, 1941, to issue at a future date, has the tax exemption privileges provided by the authorizing law at the time of the contract.

This subsection does not apply to obligations and evidences of ownership issued by the District of Columbia, a territory or possession of the United States, or a department, agency, instrumentality, or political subdivision of the District, territory, or possession.
************************************************** ********************************************

26 CFR 1.83-3 - Meaning and use of certain terms.

Code of Federal Regulations - Title 26: Internal Revenue

(4)(g)
Amount paid. For purposes of section 83 and the regulations thereunder, the term amount paid refers to the value of any money or property paid for the transfer of property to which section 83 applies, and does not refer to any amount paid for the right to use such property or to receive the income therefrom. Such value does not include any stated or unstated interest payments. For rules regarding the calculation of the amount of unstated interest payments, see 1.4831(c).

When section 83 applies to the transfer of property pursuant to the exercise of an option, the term amount paid refers to any amount paid for the grant of the option plus any amount paid as the exercise price of the option. For rules regarding the forgiveness of indebtedness treated as an amount paid, see 1.834(c).
************************************************** ***************************************

The first statute shows the exemption for obligations of the United States, i.e. Lawful Money
The second statute is pretty much a checkmate because even that last statute mentioning the other sections, they relate to performance for services rendered which is also exempt.
Income is corporate profits, plain and simple because the value offered and amount paid are the same. Even bonus checks and such if marked with the demand for lawful money are exempt from taxation, because that shows you have no interest in profiting from the interest at banks.
This is also why it is best to try and find a bank account that is non-interest baring therefor no reporting to IRS need be done.
Claim ownership of nothing, exercise control of everything for the benefit of thy neighbor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishnet

JohnnyCash,

Be careful with how you interpret tax code and be aware of how the courts interpret. Idaho State Tax Commision published this decision. Idaho Code relies on Internal Revenue Code.

"The taxpayer argued the amounts reported on the Forms 1099-MISC were incorrectly
shown as nonemployee compensation because this alleges he was in a trade or business, and a
trade or business is defined by IRC section 7701(a)(26) as the performance of the functions of a
public office. The taxpayer stated neither he nor the payers identified on the Forms 1099 were
involved in the performance of the functions of a public office.

In his interpretation of IRC section 7701(a)(26), the taxpayer misses a key component of
that section’s definition of the term “trade or business.” Subpart (26) states, “The term ‘trade or
business’ includes the performance of the functions of a public office.” This subpart does not
state that a trade or business is exclusively the performance of the functions of a public office. It
states it includes the performance of the functions of a public office. In fact, IRC section 7701(c)
defines the terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in the IRC. It
states that the terms includes and including shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise
within the meaning of the term defined. Therefore, the term trade or business also includes those
things generally attributable to the words trade and business.

Regardless of whether the taxpayer believes the services provided to the payers listed on
the Forms 1099-MISC constitutes or comes up to the level of a trade or business, the taxpayer
received compensation or remuneration for his services. According to IRC section 61, that
DECISION - 4
[Redacted] compensation is part of the taxpayer’s gross income."

http://tax.idaho.gov/decisions/0720157.pdf

---

The IRC is a trap IMHO, designed to distract attention away from the real object of the income tax, which is the endorsement of Federal Reserve credit. The IRC twists statutory construction to the utmost in order to look like something that it is not.
Normally the term (not word) "includes" has a limiting function in statutory construction.
I've lost some bookmarks to lightening so I can't conveniently pull up an example right now, but if you look at statutes from sections other than 26USC you will find that the term "includes" excludes all other items which are not listed in the text of the statute.
In order to be able to have it both ways, i.e. for the code to look good and "constitutional" to the masses, but to be interpreted according to the secret hidden contract of the Fed banks, the code provides the courts with the preposterous definition of the term "includes" and "including".

It took them roughly 1.5 million words to obscure the truth and the remedy, and they have been extremely successful at beguiling the people with it.

I had an interesting article on the terms include, including, includes, etc saved up and will try to find it on my old computer.

Can't find that article anymore, so I will link to the Informer because he explains it so much better than I.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishnet

JohnnyCash,

Be careful with how you interpret tax code and be aware of how the courts interpret....
...........
states that the terms includes and including shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise
within the meaning of the term defined. Therefore, the term trade or business also includes those
things generally attributable to the words trade and business.

---

Found what I was looking for after all.
I believe that this little treatise on key terms used in the IRC supports my assertion that the IRC was written especially to obfuscate remedy and to hide the truth about Federal Reserve Credit as opposed to Lawful Money from the people.

It's been two years since I wrote the opening post, and I'm still enjoying success against the banksters' IRS. While I continue to make plenty of lawful money, I haven't made much federal income and haven't been filing 1040 returns (no requirement). Not much evidence of that non-filing to show except this sanitized Social Security Earnings Report. So it's now No Income Tax paid - 5 years and counting. I'd like to thank David Merrill and all you suitors. I could not have achieved this success without you!

I did receive a substantial Form 1099 for 2012; that reported amount was all redeemed lawful money, not federal income at all, so that might make things more interesting going forward.

Of course the Q's chief disinformationalist, JesseJames, is fit to be tied about this & continues to denounce my success wherever he can, but mostly at FreedomWatch.

That's great to hear.

27 years for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walter

That's great to hear.

27 years for me.

---

And what method, or combination of methods, have fueled your success, if I may ask?

I've only been redeeming for the last month or so, myself, and find it thrilling. I find it odd that none of the BofA tellers have even noticed my non-endorsement. In fact, it makes me nervous every time I cash a check, just waiting to get that stink-eye! I scanned my signature and included with it the RILM verbiage, using MS Word, and just print that on the back of my checks, in lieu of a stamp.

I'm planning to start working on my libel of review very soon but am a bit overwhelmed with that one so I'm sure I will be posting here begging for help! I really can't wait to see the results of my filing with redeemed deduction included!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robert Henry

And what method, or combination of methods, have fueled your success, if I may ask?

---

The easiest one of them all. I hid.

When I finished college I had a student loan and had no job.
So I moved to a party ski hill town and had fun.

I only filed tax's when in school for two years, because of the loan you had to, and I never filed an income.

When I had a job in party town for 5 years I received the T4 slips from the employer just like everyone else.
The only difference I did was I did not file.

The CRA owned me monies from the employer taking tax's off the pay cheque, but I did not want the loans department to find me.
So I said to myself that the CRA can keep those few bucks because the headache of dealing with the student loans department at the time was not worth it for me in life.

That is what slowly drove me underground. I started to live life with out them being involved.
Made working decisions based on staying out of their eyes.
And started to work for myself.

The student loan vanished with out paying one cent, and the CRA has no claim on me.
I just never filed an income. Ever.

I did a subdivision with a couple co-owners.
Government rezoning, dealing with many government departments etc.

The co-owners gave their info to the tax man and I didn't.
They are having problems with the taxman extorting monies and I get left alone.

I told them not to do it that way but they did it anyway.
Now they are paying the price.

I had a money broker once do a NAME search on my NAME because he said everyone was in the system.
Well guess what he found out?
I am not in the system.
It was the first time he found nothing on a NAME.

What we do as kids when we first start to work for a pay cheque in life starts the ball rolling for the taxman.
We want to be grown adults so bad that we jump right into the rat-race with out ever thinking twice about what we are doing.


So it comes down to how can they hold you to a number when you never used the number?

Walter, that is an amazing story. Thank you for sharing. Would that all of us could have seen so clearly at such a young age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishnet

JohnnyCash,

Be careful with how you interpret tax code and be aware of how the courts interpret. Idaho State Tax Commision published this decision. Idaho Code relies on Internal Revenue Code.

"The taxpayer argued the amounts reported on the Forms 1099-MISC were incorrectly
shown as nonemployee compensation because this alleges he was in a trade or business, and a
trade or business is defined by IRC section 7701(a)(26) as the performance of the functions of a
public office. The taxpayer stated neither he nor the payers identified on the Forms 1099 were
involved in the performance of the functions of a public office.

In his interpretation of IRC section 7701(a)(26), the taxpayer misses a key component of
that section’s definition of the term “trade or business.” Subpart (26) states, “The term ‘trade or
business’ includes the performance of the functions of a public office.” This subpart does not
state that a trade or business is exclusively the performance of the functions of a public office. It
states it includes the performance of the functions of a public office. In fact, IRC section 7701(c)
defines the terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in the IRC. It
states that the terms includes and including shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise
within the meaning of the term defined. Therefore, the term trade or business also includes those
things generally attributable to the words trade and business.

Regardless of whether the taxpayer believes the services provided to the payers listed on
the Forms 1099-MISC constitutes or comes up to the level of a trade or business, the taxpayer
received compensation or remuneration for his services. According to IRC section 61, that
DECISION - 4
[Redacted] compensation is part of the taxpayer’s gross income."

http://tax.idaho.gov/decisions/0720157.pdf

---

Fish, this is hogwash! Those of us who have studied the use of the terms "includes/including" can see through the obfuscation attempt of the IRS. According to the definition section, from earlier revenue acts, and Blacks law dictionary, YES "includes" is a term of expansion as they submit, but the expansion only occurs within the items of the same class as those enumerated.

Eg. "For the purposes of this chapter the term "automobile" includes cars, trucks, motorcycles" Even though NOT enumerated the term can reasonably be expanded to include scooters, but would you honestly say it could reasonably include "kites"? Of course not, because "kites" are NO WAY in the same class as the aforementioned.

So what exactly does a RLM tax return look like? (for those who file them). How is it made clear that the funds in question are indeed "Lawful Money"?

I thought I would share an expansive pdf file on the use of "Includes/Including". Take a look, it's been very helpful for me.

Darkmagus

Darkmagus,

I will bite, even though I can't speak from direct experience of this, yet (eagerly awaiting tax season to file my first such return after redeeming half of this years paychecks!).

The surest proof of redemption, as I understand it, is the copies of the front and back of your non-endorsed checks that you will include with your return.

This, to me, is elegant simplicity.

There are a couple of examples of proper, though sanitized, returns with redemption schedules floating around this site, if you look around a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmagus

So what exactly does a RLM tax return look like? (for those who file them). How is it made clear that the funds in question are indeed "Lawful Money"?

---

American rule of law, read the brief here, the government's response here and the reply to that response here.

I have just entered my 8th year as a successful NONTAXPAYER! No wage garnishments, no liens, no levies, no penalties, no CP letters.
http://ctcwarrior.com/SSA_2015_3.jpg

I come before you tonight humbled by this win. It would not have been possible without the work of other freedom-fighters who came before me and published their work. Thank you David, Pete, Rick and all [including the quatlosers offering a token of their affliction] who've helped me achieve such an unprecedented victory.
Thank you very much. God bless, and go Patriots!

PS. I did not rebut the 1099-MISC amounts I received for 2012 or 2013. I simply did not include those amounts on a Form 1040 since it was redeemed lawful money and there was no obligation.
http://jesse2012.com/my109912.jpg
http://jesse2012.com/my109913.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnnyCash

I have just entered my 8th year as a successful NONTAXPAYER! No wage garnishments, no liens, no levies, no penalties, no CP letters.
http://ctcwarrior.com/SSA_2015_3.jpg

I come before you tonight humbled by this win. It would not have been possible without the work of other freedom-fighters who came before me and published their work. Thank you David, Pete, Rick and all [including the quatlosers offering a token of their affliction] who've helped me achieve such an unprecedented victory.
Thank you very much. God bless, and go Patriots!

PS. I did not rebut the 1099-MISC amounts I received for 2012 or 2013. I simply did not include those amounts on a Form 1040 since it was redeemed lawful money and there was no obligation.
http://jesse2012.com/my109912.jpg
http://jesse2012.com/my109913.jpg

---

Congrats!

One thing stands out though...

It appears that your Social Security & Medicare benefits will be greatly reduced by your "0" earnings. That makes sense if you not are wanting SSA & Medicare Benefits.

My SSA report for my past 3 successful lawful money demand tax years shows my full amount of earnings (in FRNs) credited for SSA, so it will yearly increase my SSA benefits for Retirement & Medicare, which I am paying withholding for and plan to use at age 66, and will also continue to redeem its FRNs transacted thereby. (Contact me privately about how I use TaxAct for this.)

So we are doing our 1040's very differently, and yet it appears that your previously-made point that the IRS won't touch any 1040 that has a lawful money demand reduction on it is certainly true! That's great! They don't want any "press" on it in the courts or news.

Like in the movie "National Treasure"... when the father warned about "keeping the status quo" in order to preserve their lives with their captors. This complies with Mt 13:30 - "let both grow together..." which appears to be the rule the system is honoring... because they know what happens if they don't.

Doug555 and JohnnyCash (and all others),

Wanted to mention that I redeemed my check today with the 'all transactions' verbiage handwritten on the front of the check and the deposit slip. Teller looked hard at it but ignored it (thankfully). Didn't want to have to get into it with her, but 'just for tax purposes' appears to be a simple response. Of course that might spark more speculation, but so be it. I plan to file Affidavit upon seeing the entry posted in my bank statement. I'm still mad as hell for my 'empty' Demand Letter recorded 2 years ago at the County Recorder's office. I'd probably get refunds for 2013 and 2014 but better safe than sorry. However, starting next year I can start recouping the HUGE amount of 6702 penalties I paid for TY 2008 for repeatedly trying to fight that battle. I was punished, really, like many others. And I feel so cheated for all these years of not knowing I could RILM, but I'm very grateful for the opportunity going forward.

Thanks to you guys, David and all other suitors for this education!

Sincerely,

imm

Johnny,

Do you think you can message me privately? I have a couple questions I'd like to ask. Thanks!