Printable View
Just out of curiosity among those that are still lurking the forum - is anyone filing? If so, can you outline how you've gone about it (assuming of course that we're not talking about a standard 'sheep' return where you operate under the presumption of full liability).
Sabo,Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabo
I have not filed since 2008. I filed 2004-8 with a CTC zero return, corrected forms, 4852, etc. Since my wife is now being robbed of over half her income, I am no sure how I am going to file for 2009 - 11. I suspect I still need to rebut the information returns. But, then again, the Agency sees me as an "employee" working for "wages" for an "employer" and anything I say that doesn't coincide with that seems to be met with all the Friv and nonsense penalties they can come up with. My wife and I have filed for those years jointly and they have come after her using her former married last name and not her present. I don't know how that happened, but it sure is confusing. Still not sure how we will approach unfiled years. I know that we will start applying the Suitors remedy when the next paychecks come around. Hopefully that will start something new.
I suspect ... well I won't say what I suspect. I think it's becoming fairly obvious. Anyway, guys I've got just the form for you. It's been somewhat hidden but very popular this year - Form 4G0N.
[Large image removed because it was slowing down my browser and affecting the page formatting. See attachment.]
You've been saying that a lot lately. Unfortunately, there's no strong evidence from any credible source that suggests that.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyCash
Inaction is probably not the best thing to do, so I'm asking what people are doing (as far as filing is concerned). That way, if nothing like what you've been suggesting happens (which is where I'm hedging my bets, to be perfectly honest with you), I don't continue to be in the bad situation that I'm already in.
..anyway, more constructive feedback from others would be greatly appreciated. shikamaru? Treefarmer? freedave? (I don't remember which ones have been able to avoid the gaze of the IRS' All-Seeing Eye..)
Some never realize they're penned. Some do and escape to freedom. Some are shown the gateway and, for some reason, never enter through. And finally, some work for The Man to deceive and keep the herd in bondage.
http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/...cs%2C%20Dog%2C
I suggest you pay the taxes you owe. I haven't filed since Tax Year 2008. I make lawful money not "gross income."
Sure, but I've only started redeeming Lawful Money this year. It's last year most of us have to deal with.
Are you attempting to purport that anything I made prior to that is unequivocally taxable? I feel that may be a bit short-sighted and misleading.
Besides, even if you are making Lawful Money, do you work for a place of business that pays you on a weekly/bi-weekly basis? Is it via 1099 or do you get a 1040 that you ignore or rebut? Maybe you've explained your remuneration situation in other threads, but I'm just trying to get a sense of where else our situations differ. I'm certain we aren't in the same working situation, so please understand that not everyone can instantly do exactly as you have at this very moment.
I have been pretty busy lately and involved in a wonderful conversation on the brain trust about Grantor's Right of Novation. Sabo, you simply calculate from the first paycheck that you consistently started redeeming lawful money. We have a suitor who is working through how to calculate redemption of lawful money on the 1099 Form, apparently it is a little more difficult that we have examples here for the 1040 Form.
I only started redeeming Lawful Money this year.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill
I thought I would have to wait until next year to make anything known about my Lawful Money redemption?
That's right. When you start redeeming lawful money you have no tax liability on income. So leave the withholdings from before you started redeeming lawful money. I know a few folks who started January 1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabo
So your opinion is that I have no leg to stand on from any other angle as far as general liability with 'pre-Lawful Money' ...?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabo
Once you establish record-forming through a federal evidence repository you can R4C and even accuse the IRS/Treasury of fraud by omission. Fraud vitiates all contracts so you never have actually had a tax liability. These things take time and some very interesting causes are in the pipeline now. So far though, no suitors with full evidence repositories are being fleeced, even the Pete Victims...
Knock on wood!
Please direct me to where I can learn how to 1) establish record-forming through a federal evidence repository, and 2) perform R4C.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill
A little about my personal situation:
I am being asked by the IRS to file a return for 2010, for which I initially filed for an extension, and then nothing else. They have given me a deadline of April 22, though I am told by a phone agent that I may be able to get that extended.
An IRS wage and income transcript for 2010 shows 3 W-2s, 2 1099-DIVs, 1 1099-MISC, and 1 1098-E student loan statement.
If pressed like I'm now being, I had previously planned to file CtC-educated (Form 4852 rebuttal of W-2s and "corrected" 1099s). Now, however, I am questioning taking that path based on Pete's incarceration, and what others have said about Form 4852 raising big red flags / inviting frivolous penalties (now or later), and so forth.
Unfortunately, I only started redeeming checks for lawful money this year.
Brain trust words of experience, guidance, and wisdom much appreciated. Thank you.
:D
IMHO, inaction is definitely not the way to go, as it will only delay the fight and may make it nastier when it does arrive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabo
DH and I have been fighting it out with the IRS for about two years now, and we have learned that the IRS plays totally unpredictable and irrational for the most part, but they can make sense if they want to. That's a big IF though.
IF they have any kind of a policy, they are not letting on.
We filed HENDRICKSON style for 5 years, but they only took offense at three of those years. One of them was 2009, the year after the big housing crash (we were in the construction business) and we only had one W-2 form that year and it was for under $4,000.00. We file married, jointly, and if we had filed conventionally for '09 we would have gotten all FICA and Medicare withholdings back, plus EIC. But to be consistent with previous years and because we didn't know any better, we filed HENDRICKSON style.
The IRS sent us a refund check and then informed us that we took a "frivolous" stance and if we didn't submit a non-frivolous return they would fine us 2 times $5,000.00.
I refused 4 cause and then submitted 2 more versions of form 1040 EZ for '09, one in zero income style claiming lawful money, and one conventional filing claiming EIC. I wrote a cover letter asking them to choose whichever version they liked better.
That was about 9 months ago and we've not heard back from them about this yet.
We built our LoR around years '07 and '08. For those years we had initially hired a CPA to do our taxes, back when we had an LLC. The CPA had obviously screwed up, so I had taken matters into my own hands and filed 1040X forms HENDRICKSON style. First we got full refunds and about a year later $20,000.00 worth of "frivolous" penalties, at which point we R4C'd and filed the LoR.
Then they sent us tax bills for those years, which mutated over the course of some correspondence and R4C and got smaller. At no point did the IRS's tax bills resemble the numbers which the CPA had figured, nor did they resemble any amount I could have figured out by any method that I'm aware of. The frivolous penalty appears to have got cut in half, according to some fairly recent bill which we R4C'd.
I recently sent the IRS a NOTICE of REVOCATION, apologizing for my ignorant and "frivolous" filings and REVOKING them. I have not heard back about that either.
I have filed a 1040EZ for 2011, where we only had one W-2 for under $4,000.00 again, as well as a full record of lawful money redemption. I wrote a cover letter informing the IRS of our demand for lawful money and I included a copy of a non-endorsed paycheck, front and back. I wrote "EIC" on line 8a and asked them to figure the EIC, if applicable.
This week I got a letter from them informing me that they "corrected a mistake" on my 1040EZ, that is they calculated the EIC for me. It resulted in a refund for us, which they kept, as payment for the taxes which they figured we still owed for '07.
Apparently they considered the amount from the W-2 to be taxable "income", lawful money demand not withstanding.
We have learned this:
1) The IRS only seems interested in "income", whatever that may be, if it is reported to them by a "PAYER" or "EMPLOYER" on some form of theirs, like W-2 or 1099.
2) So far in their dealings with us they have avoided sending us any correspondence which could be construed as being their "official position" on the demand for lawful money redemption. They appear to obfuscate this matter intentionally.
3) Dealing in Lawful Money in the form of cash (FRNs) is a good and honest way to do business.
$) We still don't have a clue what "income" is.
While this is all completely anecdotal, I hope that it will help some people here in their decision making process.
Shalom
For what its worth, Income: http://blacks.worldfreemansociety.org/2/I/i0612.jpg
If you have been endorsing private credit from the Fed then you are in that signature agreement to send them a return of your income for that privilege. You should redeem lawful money rather and get into that habit. I think you will start learning how to negotiate the returns because you are already part way there with Pete HENDRICKSON's material. He was never applying the remedy in the law though. He never promoted non-endorsement.Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheCrease
That's interesting. Two thing about that:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian
What does Black's Law (assuming that's what the scan is from) say about "revenue"?Quote:
"Income" when applied to the affairs of individuals expresses the same idea that "revenue" does when applied to the affairs of a state or nation.
Below it, 'income tax' is defined as tax on yearly "profits", which in 'Income' is defined as gain upon businesses and investments.
Am I being too pedantic, or is this one of the reasons we're (meant as those who are non-sheep) fighting the way we are?
Sabo, Here is the link for Black's Law 1st and 2nd editionsQuote:
Originally Posted by Sabo
http://blacks.worldfreemansociety.org/
Revenue: http://blacks.worldfreemansociety.org/2/R/r1034.jpg
Think of extending this to The Good Church, the Mandatory Exception (Section 508(c)(1)(A) - churches) of you in self-governance at home.
It may be a lot safer to think of this all in terms of informal corporation sole. At least the author of the diagram wishes that you not use it without considering the risks carefully.Quote:
"The legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted." (Gregory v. Helvering, (1934) 239 US 465,460.)
http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/6...goodchurch.jpg
David in the diagram you have presented the Good Church is incorporated with a charter grant. Then it states that it is an unusual incorporation, in that it is similar to Articles of Association. Is reason the articles of association are used because it is filed with a different government agency. Not with the Sec. of state. If this is not the case then why are the Art. of Association filed instead of the usual type of non-profit incorporation with the Sec. of State. FB
I understand it being free of registration altogether. However if it is to be registered at all then it functions under the state registration procedures for a corporation sole. But I do not know a lot about corporation sole.
I believe that Wesley SNIPES got in hot water with Eddie Ray KAHN for trying to set up corporation sole.
I tried something different this year. I used the John H. Doe approach but made modifications. The "pay" they claim I received is through 1099's. I claimed all on the 1040. I also liquidated an IRA account, which I also claimed. But I then negated all on line 21 as in the example of John H. Doe. I attached a schedule for line 21 where I incorporated each 1099 into the filing and included a copy of EVERY check with non-endorsement. On the schedule I listed the "gross pay" from the 1099, then my Demand for Lawful Money Reduction (i.e. the total of the checks non-endorsed), and showed a total line showing zero as "taxable income." I did this for all 5 1099's. I also incorporated a copy of Title 12 and I also incorporated an Affidavit of Truth signed True Name with Notary signature. Also, since one of my "employers" went to direct deposit, I registered my demand at the Register of Deeds at the end of 2010 and included a certified copy of that demand for that pay in the filing as well. My viewpoint is this - since I had no income (i.e. due to lawful money) I owe them no filing. But if I don't file I can't offset their presumption that I am endorsing private credit. So I file. Only to be (most likely) met with future frivolous filings.
At this time I have no belief any of it will matter and I expect frivolous notices to arrive. But here's hoping. I received a Refund Due notice from them for 2010 only to be currently met with Frivoulous Filing bills (2 now) for the same calendar year and an agent in Utah who sent me a "proposed tax due" calculation (which was R4C and used to establish my LOR). I feel like I am in a quandry. I have their own Notice CP12 that they owe me money, but it doesn't seem to matter because they continue to claim I owe them money (after the date of their Notice CP12). As I mentioned tonight to another suitor, I believe the challenge is they will fight me tooth and nail because if they ever have to pay me the "money" they themselves previously said they owe me then they are exposed. Who knows. After the past few months and being currently involved in my LOR filing I have to say not much will surprise me going forward.
It seems to me the IRS tries to collect revenue under every possible pretext, without being encumbered by any laws, rules or regulations, such as the "Constitution" (whatever that mythical creature may be), or the IRC, or statutes, or anything else I've seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffreydavid
If their job is to implement "public policy" by hitting everyone up for more and more debt instruments, aka "money", then I suppose they can change their so-called rules as they go along, and make up new ones daily at their whim.
I have noticed that once information returns have been generated, such as W-2 and/or 1099, the IRS expects to get a cut, unless the $ amount is under a specified threshold amount which changes yearly and seems to trail inflation somewhat.
That sounds about right. Thanks for many of your previous posts. I have read a few this evening and appreciate your sharing. Today I received a Final Notice of Intent to Levy... and I was not planning on using Registered Mail to send it back through my LOR but after reading one of your comments I think at this point in the game I am more interested in paying the money to send it than leave it to chance. Thanks again.
Treefarmer;
One technique at play is that the presentments keep coming from different campuses of the IRS. That is why we open the evidence repository with a LoR against Timothy Franz GEITHNER - the Secretary of the Treasury acting as the US Governor of the IMF.
A suitor with a Libel of Review would Refuse for cause the Final Notice for Levy with the original R4C going to GEITHNER on the LoR in action. Send a copy of both the Clerk Instruction and the R4C to the campus that has mailed you the Presentment. The original clerk instruction with a copy of the R4C goes to the USDC into your LoR. Keep a copy for your records...
You can keep a record of what is in the "exclusive original cognizance" of the US government. That is probably what it will take to dissuade the IRS agent from calling your boss or bank.
Yes, that technique has worked well for us.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill
It sometimes also works to send presentments back to sender without opening them, or accepting them, in the case of certified IRS mail which requires a signature.
Last summer while I was on my road trip out west, DH was tending the treefarm. I had instructed him not to contract with any alphabet agencies, and he didn't.
He refused to sign for the certified letter presentments which happened to show up while I was out of town. We'll never know what was in them, because after three unsuccessful tries the IRS stopped sending them.
Of course we already had our LoR in place by then, going into a default judgment.
Here are some examples of Default Judgment.