666? They have a sense of 'humor' no doubt?
Printable View
666? They have a sense of 'humor' no doubt?
For those who still have no idea about the form W-2, wage and tax statement,
This is what IRS said:
Every employer engaged in a trade or business who pays remuneration, including noncash payments of $600 or more for the year (all amounts if any income, social security, or Medicare tax was withheld) for services performed by an employee must file a Form W-2 for each employee (even if the employee is related to the employer) from whom:
Income, social security, or Medicare tax was withheld.
Income tax would have been withheld if the employee had claimed no more than one withholding allowance or had not claimed exemption from withholding on Form W-4, Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate.
Hope this also helps.
People who do not have their taxes paid for them by their employer are required to keep up with their won tax debt. It must be reported yearly to the IRS and any taxes owed paid. It isn't illegal to pay in cash, just more hassle for the employee.
If you can make a notice and demand with no questions asked and have it honored like this, The CRA is not responsible for losses or damages that result from your use of the GST/HST Registry, this includes etc. etc. etc. …… this would be great.
Those who have followed the series Mad Men probably remember a number of scenes when Roger Sterling gave someone a wad of cash to do a job for him. It’s probably safe to assume that money wasn’t reported to the IRS. Although it is not illegal to pay employees and contractors in cash, there are a variety of downfalls associated with this business practice. Most importantly, it complicates the process of paying an accurate amount of payroll taxes. - See more at:
Fortunately I'm no employer engaged in a trade or business and can ignore all that.
You can check the status of your lawful money tax refund here http://irs.gov/Refunds
What about signing the tax return ... "Under penalties of perjury?" I have seen them signed:
Legal Name
True Name
True Name dba Legal Name
Did you put a All Rights Reserved under your signature?
One can reserve all rights and immunities too, if applicable.
It's not a billion, but I just went to irs.gov/refund and my refund was approved. Of course I am now waiting for the funds to appear in the bank before I am satisfied that all is well but I can confess to you all my anxiety of confronting the fearful IRS/Fed and the satisfaction I am beginning to enjoy as I learn who I am and where I stand among men and women.
Running the Fed is a great legacy not only for yourself but for your neighbor and children too!
Amen. Three types of Tax Transcripts are available online directly from the IRS http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/Get-Transcript
Return Transcripts - show most line items from your tax return (Form 1040, 1040A or 1040EZ) as it was originally filed, including any accompanying forms and schedules.
Account Transcripts - provide any adjustments either you or we made after you filed your return.
Wage and Income Transcripts - show data from information returns, such as W-2s, 1099s and 1098s, reported to the IRS.
Someone checking on the status of their refund saw this. Not sure why.
Attachment 2375
Turns out one of the filers has 4 names, First Second Third Fourth, while the tax return has just 3 name slots - First Middle Last. Looks like that was enough to confuse the IRS computer; Name - SSN mismatch.
Reminder that tax returns are due Wednesday, April 15th, 2015.
And chicken fries are back.
Attachment 2443
1. Math miscalculations
Use tax software and you won't have errors.
2. Computation errors
see above.
3. Misspelled or different names
The IRS is all about numbers, but words -- specifically names -- are important, too. When the names of a taxpayer, his or her spouse or their children don't match the tax identification number that the Social Security Administration has on record, that difference will cause the IRS to kick out or slow down processing of the tax return.
4. Direct deposit dangers
A wrong account or routing number could cause you to lose your refund entirely.
5. Additional income
Did you have a side job this year? Paid in lawful money? If so, you're golden. As a contractor making lawful money do you really have statutory income even if you received a Form 1099-MISC detailing the extra earnings?
6. Filing status errors
Make sure you choose the correct filing status for your situation. You have 5 options, and each could make a difference in your ultimate tax bill/refund.
7. Social Security number oversights
Your tax ID number is crucial because there are so many transactions -- income statements, savings account interest, retirement plan contributions -- keyed to this number.
8. Complete charitable contributions
9. Signature required
Sign and date your return. The IRS won't process it if it's missing a John Hancock, and that means on e-filed returns, too. Taxpayers filing electronically must sign the return electronically using a personal identification number, or PIN. To verify your identity, you'll have to provide the PIN you used last year or your adjusted gross income from your previous year's tax return.
10. Missing the deadline
Millions of filers put off filing until the very last minute. That's OK as long as your mailed paper return is postmarked by April 15.
Read more: http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxe...o-avoid-1.aspx
IRS Refund in bitcoins?
Just found out that Turbo Tax filers can get an extra 10% by electing to receive their refund in Amazon gift cards. Jane then converted her gift cards into bitcoins at 3% below market at Purse. Talk about staying out of the Federal Reserve Districts & Cities!
https://medium.com/@PurseIO/10-use-c...n-c6b7182aa1b9
Quote:
Jane is an accountant in New York. Like most Americans, she’s looking forward to her tax refund. She’s interested in diversifying her portfolio which mostly consists of US equities, commodities, and bonds. This year, she turned her federal tax refund into a bitcoin investment.
Like last year, she filed through Turbo Tax to get an extra 10% by electing to receive Amazon gift cards. She converted her gift cards into bitcoins through Purse patiently and averaged 7% premiums.
While the average premium on Purse for bitcoins is ~20%, there are often orders with lower premiums available for VIP buyers. Jane got verified, accepted Amazon gift cards for her refund, and converted it to bitcoin for 3% below market price.
I am very grateful for all the useful information everyone has posted in this site to help me so far.
Last year I filed demanding lawful money for the latter half of 2013 and there was no problem, in fact they corrected a math mistake on line 32 AGI and sent the 2013 return with this adjustment. This year I filed for a full year 2014 on all paychecks and also 1099 from 401K. The Net AGI turned out to be negative amount because a very small amount of the money withdrawn from the 401K in 2014 was put in there with after tax dollars so it was not included in 1099 from 401k bank. Also since I am not yet 59, I added the 10% tax penalty on line 59 for the 401k dispersal. Other than these numbers, the documentation and schedule for line 21 was the same as my 2013 return. I received the notice over the weekend with absolutely no explanation on what was "frivolous" and I have 1 month to reply. I appreciate any and all comments on what the IRS may be considering as "frivolous" with this 2014 return.
Also, any comments on how a d4l demand could affect the 10% penalty on the 401k early disbursement.
After receiving my refund via direct deposit, I was dreading the letter from IRS telling me that "XYZ" was wrong and I had some explaining to do. The letter from IRS arrived the other day. I quickly opened it to see the bad news. sure enough there was an error in calculations. But the error turned out to be not related to Lawful Money Redemption but some other area. It lowered my calculated refund by about $100. My lawful money return stood!!;)
The letter said that if I agreed with the calculation to do nothing. I am wondering should I actually send them notice that I agree in full to their calculations, thus cementing the validity of my deduction of Lawful Money?
Don't be so quick to jump into that wet cement.
What "other area"?
And why might this other area not also include your demands for "lawful money and full discharge on all transactions" ?
I did not start redeeming until March so I guess that amount came from un-redeemed income
Thank you JohnnyCash for your posts on how to fill out line 21. I received a "frivoulous" return notice from the IRS on my second year of filing because I overstated the demand for lawful money which put my AGI in a negative position. I am going to file amended 1040 with lesser amount on line 21. Will keep forum posted on how this goes. Thank all of you.
Well, my point here is don't guess
Be sure of what you've done & stand by it.....or.....be sure you've made a mistake on that return.
Has IRS justified the $100 discrepancy descriptively....or is that number just thrown out there to create a doubt in your mind as to your Lawful Money return.....i.e. an offer to recontract?
Anyone else wanna pipe in ?
You are quite right about guessing. I was truly overwhelmed with my refund, however. It was VERY large and 100 was nothing and I was just thankful that Lawful Money redemption worked without question, this was my first return. I have taken the time to actually read the IRS letter. The error was my mistake. On line 65 I added 100 to the amount of tax I paid in for some 1099 work. They corrected and therein lay the issue. I am still waiting for a very large refund from the state.
Well, good on you David Neil !!
Durn tootin' that LM return works !!!!!!
Thank you David Merrill et al !!
Looks like the Oregon Revenue Dept. is going to gum up the works. Even though the Oregon Income Tax is predicated on the your taxable income from the Federal Return, they are questioning Lawful Money deduction I claimed on line 21 of the 1040. Just got off the phone with them. I explained to them what it was but of course they need to investigate. I put this return in in early Feb. and they have never sent me anything asking for more information. I can't believe this is the first LM return they have received and they need to investigate. Anyone ever file in Oregon?
Oregon has "disallowed" my lawful money reduction. They are asking for quotes for the IRS code which shows that lawful money is deductible. Are there any specifics that someone can guide me to?
"From its earliest days, the Supreme Court has indicated that direct taxes include capitations and real property taxes at a minimum.24
The Court has also suggested that other types of taxes might be considered direct,25 although the Court did not find any such examples 26 until the
Pollock case in 1895."
Footnote 26: "26 See Hylton, 3 U.S. at 175 (upholding unapportioned tax on carriages); Pacific Insurance Co. v. Soule, 74 U.S. 433
(1869) (upholding tax on the business of insurance); Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. 533 (1869) (upholding tax on bank
notes); Scholey v. Rew, 90 U.S. 331 (1875) (upholding inheritance tax); Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881)
(upholding income tax)."
From: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40725.pdf
Tell them your time given to your employer was paid in money issued directly from the U.S. Treasury and not in bank credit issued by a bank! Veazie Bank v. Fenno!
When your time is paid in money issued under article 1 section 8 clause 2 (USN's) or 5 (coin) it is subject to the direct tax clauses.
When your time is discharged with bank credit issued by any bank operating under the federal reserve act it is subject to the excise tax or duty on contracts, on income upheld in Springer and explained in Veazie Bank.
Please provide the redacted letter for us. It is important to know the exact wording of this challenge.
IMO, there is NO "deduction" for LM in the IRC.
Why?
Because the entire IRC only applies to FRNs - private credit of the FRS - as incurred by the usage of same.
The IRS rightly only allows "deductions" for FRN usage. "Deduction" is a FRN-based term, IMO. DON'T USE IT!
LM amounts received are "non-income", that is, amounts that are not to be included in the FRN-based term called "income". This is why Line 21 of the 1040 is used to "reduce" the FRN-based "income" amount.
Let me refer you to David Merrill's article "Public Money vs Private Credit".
Notice in particular David's insightful statements below:
Quote:
On page 1 of 4:
"Our federal personal income tax is not really a tax in the ordinary sense of the word but rather a burden or obligation which the taxpayer voluntarily assumes, and the burden of the tax falls upon those who voluntarily use private credit. Simply stated, the tax imposed is a charge or fee upon the use of private credit where the amount of private credit used measures the pecuniary obligation.
Let me also refer you to http://lawfulmoney.blogspot.com/p/usn-not-taxable.html which illustrates that instruments "employed by the government [17 U.S. 316, 437] of the Union to carry its powers into execution" [Unites States Notes] are not taxable.Quote:
On page 2 of 4:
A Taxpayer is allowed to claim a $1000 personal deduction when filing his return. The average taxpayer in the course of a year uses United States coins in vending machines, parking meters, small change, etc, and this public money must be deducted when computing the charge for using private credit.
The US Supreme Court, in M'CULLOCH v. STATE, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) at 17 U.S. 316, 476, states that "imposing a tax on the Bank of the United States, is unconstitutional and void."
And further, it states that "a tax on the operation of an instrument employed by the government [17 U.S. 316, 437] of the Union to carry its powers into execution. Such a tax must be unconstitutional."
Quote:
M'CULLOCH v. STATE, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) at 17 U.S. 316
The court has bestowed on this subject its most deliberate consideration. The result is a conviction that the states have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control, the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the general government. This is, we think, the unavoidable consequence of that supremacy which the constitution has declared. We are unanimously of opinion, that the law passed by the legislature of Maryland, imposing a tax on the Bank of the United States, is unconstitutional and void.
This opinion does not deprive the states of any resources which they originally possessed. It does not extend to a tax paid by the real property of the bank, in common with the other real property within the state, nor to a tax imposed on the interest which the citizens of Maryland may hold in this institution, in common with other property of the same description throughout the state. But this is a tax on the operations of the bank, and is, consequently, a tax on the operation of an instrument employed by the government [17 U.S. 316, 437] of the Union to carry its powers into execution. Such a tax must be unconstitutional.
So, beware of falling into the trap of letting any agency, state or federal, getting you to agree that a LM "deduction" on a 1040 Form is not "allowed" simply because LM is not mentioned as a "deduction" in the IRC.
LM in not in the IRC because it is outside the scope and jurisdiction of the IRC and the private FRS.
This jurisdictional line-in-the-sand is Divinely enforced by Mt 22:20-21.
LM is solely a "reduction" to the amount rightly-assumed to be "income" on Line 7 and other lines, because it is an amount that was declared explicitly on the record as transacted in Lawful Money per 12 USC 411, for which you have substantive evidence per FRE 803(6) that is unrebuttable, IF you followed the instructions at http://1040relief.blogspot.com/p/getting-started.html, namely:Quote:
20 And He said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" 21 They said to Him, "Caesar's." Then He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."
Quote:
...writing “lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)” on the front of one’s checks and deposit slips, underneath one’s name and address in the upper left-hand corner of these documents, then one can start subtracting those transaction amounts on the IRS 1040 forms (out-going amounts of LAWFUL money excluded).
LM is NOT a "deduction". Beware of "word-crafting" traps!
P.S. I recommend that you join David's new website at: http://www.lawfulmoneytrust.com/
So far there is no letter. I was contacted by phone. It all began last week after having waited these many months since filing that I had not received my refund. Checking the web site they informed me that the form was being processed manually. I called and the attendant said they would make an inquiry. If I had not received any further requests for information in a weeks time, to call back. I waited a week, called back and the new attendant said there were no responses to their inquiry in the system and that she would have a supervisor contact the people handling the the manual audit. That very day, yesterday, I got a call from "Steve" at the end of the day and he said I was handling my file. He asked about my entry on line 21 for the 1040 and I explained 12 USC 411. I told him that since the income tax was a use tax and I did not use federal reserve notes there is not tax due. I also told him that the IRS had already accepted my return. As I indicated earlier they questioned a $100 discrepancy in quarterly withholding I had sent in and amounts I claimed on 1040. They said nothing about my line 21 reduction. My refund was therefore reduced by the $100. I volunteered to send a copy of this letter but he declined. I then stated that the Only requirement of the Oregon Form was to transfer the taxable income from line 37 of 1040 the adjusted gross income to their form and calculate taxes from there. I asked him what jurisdiction he had over questioning what was done on a 1040. He said that state law gave them the authority to question my income at any stage of the game.
He called today to tell me that he had read 12 usc 411 and did not see how that reduced my income. There was further back and forth along the same lines as yesterday when he stated that he would be calculating Oregon taxes based on his criteria and he would be sending me a letter. He also told me that I had to find something IRC to justify this entry on 21.
He assured me that I had the right to appeal, like I want to enter that den of vipers to get my money back.
Once I receive my letter I will post.
BTW just joined Lawful Money Trust and I just learned of McCulloch v Maryland. I will send this decision to him and point out out the logic of doug555 that LM is outside of the IRC and therefore I cannot prove a negative.
Looking forward to the section on Basic Trusts
You might show Oregon that principal isn't taxed.
OK...
Look again at David's statement in "Public Money vs Private Credit":
IMO, this may establish the principle behind reducing 1040 tax by the amount of public money used.Quote:
On page 2 of 4:
A Taxpayer is allowed to claim a $1000 personal deduction when filing his return. The average taxpayer in the course of a year uses United States coins in vending machines, parking meters, small change, etc, and this public money must be deducted when computing the charge for using private credit.
David, can you specify where in the IRC you found this $1000 personal deduction?
Thank you Brian. I will also include these cites when directing my rebuttal the "Steve". My concern is that his attitude was stuck on "Find it in the IRC before I will consider it". This brings up the observation by doug555 that LM is without the IRC and I will never be able to find relevant information within. Citing law may well be met with refusal. I would then have to take it up with the tax court. We will see. Many times I have read in these threads that the tax courts do not want to hear challenges based on lawful money for fear of exposure to their scam.
IMO, if I were you, since all is governed now by contract/trust (and not by law), I would create a contract/trust with any agency/party that is trespassing against me, the man, and get this contract/trust (which is usually ratified by their silence/acquiescence) recorded in the county recorder's office so it becomes admissible substantive evidence.
I would create an "Affidavit in Support of the Lawful Money Reduction on Federal and State Tax Returns". Use this affidavit to give you a template for the format and content thereof.
I would also follow this procedure to establish my status to perform the same.
This claim, upon modification, may be a remedy for curing said trespass.
IMO... It is better to create a pro-active, substantive record. This record should begin with this letter, modified for using LM. Then use the Fault and Default letters.
I would not "argue" (discuss) this over the phone with anyone... such recorded proceedings, IMO, are a trap. A substantive, non-hearsay record must be created with the intent to enforce a trespass against the "man".
Others in this group may have better solutions, and I hope they will respond to you... in accord with Prov 11:14
Quote:
14 Where no counsel is, the people fall : but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.
Finally got a letter from Oregon Revenue. They are keeping my money so far and are threatening a frivolous return fine. I just got this so I haven't studied it much but I want to post it ASAP as I do not have the chops to rebutt this. My first thoughts are that it states there is an appearance. I would want to demand the exact position which is frivolous. It also states that "on its face" which is prima facie evedennce that will stand until refuted. I am not sure yet that I even did a self assessment. The Oregon form simply states to place the total I got in line X of form 1040 into Line Y of the Oregon form.
Please let me know what experiences you ladies and gentelmen have had in similar circumstance and how you approached it.
I did send Alex a letter stating my position of redeeming lawful money. sent a copy of my IRS statement showing that my return was evaluated and correct except the $100 over reporting error. I sent reference to Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. 533 (1869) and a couple of other points.
I will be looking closer to this once I return home.
Attachment 2652
Also they gave this July 20 deadline with apparent substantial penalties. Is there anyway to hold these off?
I am not saying this is the answer David
But don’t move from your position just because someone like Alex Anderson has an opinion.
Refresh Post #73 and stick to your guns.
Thanks Checks. IRS has, as far as I can tell accepted my return as accurate as I received my refund. This would therefore not be an IRS jurisdiction matter.
What I concentrate on is the first paragraph and the last. If the self-assessment they are speaking of regards the actual 1040 form I am wonder what allows them the be the arbiters of correctness as this is not there form. I am on the hold with IRS now to see if they can send me information confirming the fact that my "self-assessment" is correct. They also speak of "frivolous". I have not looked through ORS to find if a frivolous definition exists but it appears they are also basing frivolous on the IRS definitions which this forum as shown how to defeat.
My concern is the Oregon Statutes that state 361.922
The Department of Revenue shall assess a penalty of $250 against any individual who files what purports to be a return of the tax imposed by this chapter but which:
(a) Does not contain information on which the substantial correctness of the self-assessment may be judged; or
(b) Contains information that on its face indicates that the self-assessment is substantially incorrect.
(2) A penalty may be imposed under subsection (1) of this section only if the conduct referred to in subsection (1) of this section is due to:
(a) A position which is frivolous; or
(b) An intention, apparent on the face of the purported return, to delay or impede the administration of the income tax laws of this state.
So my most immediate threat is for them to assess the tax, impose fees and penalties and to appeal. I really can't afford this so I will have to have a very well thought out plan as to how to fight and survive. Since I always over pay on w-4 I should have enough (guess I should go through the math to see what I would have paid sans 12USC411). Their threats of 20-100% penalties suck, so I will have to read how they may or may not apply.
Also all of my demands have followed the format of Doug55 and include 12USC(a)2 "Any payment, conveyance, transfer, assignment, or delivery of property or interest therein, made to or for the account of the United States, or as otherwise directed, pursuant to this section or any rule, regulation, instruction, or direction issued hereunder shall to the extent thereof be a full acquittance and discharge for all purposes of the obligation of the person making the same; and no person shall be held liable in any court for or in respect to anything done or omitted in good faith in connection with the administration of, or in pursuance of and in reliance on, this section, or any rule, regulation, instruction, or direction issued hereunder."
Also in accord with Doug555 i have a sworn affidavit of my intention to demand lawful money.
As for the last paragraph I read this as "I won't provide any evidence you request, I am merely going to administer the law as I see it."