Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 137

Thread: Treasury Letter from 1984

  1. #101
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    in an intended free America
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyCash View Post
    [banjo]
    People lemme tell ya 'bout a con named Jay
    poor tax lawyer couldn't get the time o day.
    Then one day he was auditing the bank
    when he came across the truth, the source o that stank
    Banker pulls him over: 'It's the worlds best scam.
    Now you work for us Jay, stop your runnin' on the lam'

    Next thing you know ol' Jay's a millionaire,
    His kinfolk said, 'Jay, move away from there!'
    Be a mimic on the net, This is what ya outta do'
    so he started up the webstie, called it quatloo
    loos, that is, fictional money, private credit.

    Well now it's time to say goodbye to Jay and all his kin.
    They would like to thank you folks fer kindly droppin' in.
    You're all invited back next week to this locality
    To have a heapin' helpin' of their disinfo-itality

    Agents that is. Set a spell, Take your shoes off.

    Y'all come back now, y'hear?

    Johnny, VERY creative! Kudos to you!

  2. #102

    Patriots win again

    Taking a Line 21 Lawful Money deduction for more than your earnings? Must be Famspear's new math. I believe they call that driving the train past the station. I don't think such a filing would end well for the filer. I'd venture to say you're likely to get a civil penalty for that. For filing what Ms. Weaver calls clearly unallowable deductions. I am witness to several lawful money IRS filings but none claimed more than earnings. All of them successful, none penalized and no CP letters afterward. Here's one of them:

    Primary filer with $47xxx. in reported W2 income.
    Secondary filer with about $48k in reported 1099 income http://jesse2012.com/my109913.jpg yet none of it entered on the 1040.

    http://www.ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_victory.pdf

  3. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyCash View Post
    Taking a Line 21 Lawful Money deduction for more than your earnings? Must be Famspear's new math. I believe they call that driving the train past the station. I don't think such a filing would end well for the filer. I'd venture to say you're likely to get a civil penalty for that. For filing what Ms. Weaver calls clearly unallowable deductions. I am witness to several lawful money IRS filings but none claimed more than earnings. All of them successful, none penalized and no CP letters afterward. Here's one of them:

    Primary filer with $47xxx. in reported W2 income.
    Secondary filer with about $48k in reported 1099 income http://jesse2012.com/my109913.jpg yet none of it entered on the 1040.

    http://www.ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_victory.pdf
    Clearly, you do not understand fractional reserve banking, whereby new money is created by the additional derivative transactions...

    You still did not answer my question: Why don't you demand lawful money for GROSS income?

    Perhaps the fear you are projecting stems from your mistake of not demanding lawful money for GROSS income on your returns, making yours frivolous?


    BTW: personal attacks are a classic tactic of dis-info agents, avoiding the issue at hand. You really should stop obsessing about other websites' faults... and what about your position that the IRS would never touch ANY return demanding lawful money?

    NOTE: Lawful money demands are NOT "deductions". Beware of using that FRN term, or it will be frivolous. LMDs are a reduction.

    NOTE: The "OPERATION OF LAW" is also TRANSACTION-BASED!

    Last edited by doug555; 01-10-15 at 10:51 PM.

  4. #104
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    in an intended free America
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by doug555 View Post
    Clearly, you do not understand fractional reserve banking, whereby new money is created by the additional derivative transactions...

    You still did not answer my question: Why don't you demand lawful money for GROSS income?

    Perhaps the fear you are projecting stems from your mistake of not demanding lawful money for GROSS income on your returns, making yours frivolous?


    BTW: personal attacks are a classic tactic of dis-info agents, avoiding the issue at hand. You really should stop obsessing about other websites' faults... and what about your position that the IRS would never touch ANY return demanding lawful money?

    NOTE: Lawful money demands are NOT "deductions". Beware of using that FRN term, or it will be frivolous. LMDs are a reduction.

    NOTE: The "OPERATION OF LAW" is also TRANSACTION-BASED!


    JohnnyCash and Doug555,

    This is quite the debate. I believe I tried to understand Doug555's explanation with my own response to member 'ag maniac' (see bottom, quoted), of which Doug555 did not dispute. Therefore if true, perhaps I am understanding his theory/explanation of RILM as the IRS accounting would have it. However, JohnnyCash claims 7+ years success with his interpretation/method (taking a NET pay 'deduction' which satisfies the difference from Gross). I do find it odd to come up with a number greater than the starting Gross Pay, however it makes accounting sense if this is in fact a valid accounting method. I'm not well-versed enough in accounting overall, but I know that you DO have negative sides of a ledger to balance the other side. It would be nice if the IRS would specifically tell us but that will never happen.

    I tend to believe you must account for the GROSS PAY in this (all transactions) because of this simple logic: if your employer paid you but did not make ANY deductions from your pay, but YOU had to make the deductions yourself and send them in, then the 'taxable event' is emphatically upon the GROSS PAY that you were paid. You would 1) RILM the GROSS PAY, and then 2) send the deductions in. I just don't see it happening on the NET pay alone. But there is 'NET pay success' out there, or as claimed, so go figure; but, does the 'NET pay success' make it technically correct? I tend to think not. Though I do believe Doug555 and his math relative to Gross Pay and the 1040, I'd like to verify the 'greater than gross pay' number from an accountant in a general accounting sense.

    Johnny, I too wondered why you are so obsessed with others and their 'dis-info'. You made it a point on another website after many weeks of not posting, to ONLY point out another's 'dis-info' and not really addressing the topic at hand on that site. And I asked you previously in this thread (as Doug555 has above), to respond to my question as to why you thought the IRS would NEVER touch ANY return demanding lawful money. By your silence, you deferred. What is the basis for that view? Your own success (if valid)? You won't answer the questions, is my point. And I think Doug555 is asking this as well.


    imm

    The net result of 'income' is the same in the 1040 PDF example and Doug555's example, however (as I'm understanding it) ALL transactions must be accounted for in the calculation to get there. This is because every one of those transactions is initially presumed to be paid or deducted in FRN's. So, one (i.e. IRS) could argue that in the 1040 PDF example, the NET pay deduction ($35,662) is being claimed as lawful money but the withholding deductions are not. But they both come from the same payment (Gross Pay). Upshot: you can't have one part of the Gross Pay be lawful money and another part not. However, many suitors appear to be using the '1040 PDF example' to much success. I can't argue with the success of that, but Doug555 makes a strong case that it could be interpreted as 'incorrect' to some degree.

    Doug555's example appears to mimic a general ledger-type accounting, where all transactions must be accounted for in the overall balancing. The higher-than-Gross but negative Line 21 value is the sum of ALL transactions redeemed in lawful money, as Doug555 has shown. The 'income' is the net result (the withholdings) after subtracting the Gross Pay.
    Last edited by itsmymoney; 01-11-15 at 02:15 AM.

  5. #105
    So the law doesnt lie.....Social Security (Employment and/or self-employment) means "gross income".
    So the earnings from participation of Social Security are in essence "gross income" as computed under subtitle A?
    So if you dont participate in Social Security then the earnings are not derived from "employment" or "self-employment" (aka Social Security) and therefore do not fall under subtitle A's "gross income"...........NOT TAXABLE INCOME!
    They are not considered "income" for the purpose of Title 26.
    But I already knew this! http://www.community.defendindepende...t=605&start=10

    a job that is statutorily exempt from Social Security

    A Section 218 Agreement is a written voluntary agreement between a State and the Social Security Administration to provide Social Security and Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) or Medicare coverage only for employees of State and local governments. This agreement is authorized under Section 218 of the Social Security Act. Employees covered under a Section 218 Agreement have the same coverage and benefit rights as employees in the private sector. All States have a Section 218 Agreement, but the extent of coverage varies. http://www.ssa.gov/slge/faqs.htm#a0=0

    http://stormthunder.com/#axzz3OWkvRkMZ

    Case Law & Public Documents. http://www.codebusters.org/case-law-...uments-f4.html

    Complaint Review: Jay Adkisson. http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/jay-ad...rusts-t-356944
    Last edited by Chex; 01-11-15 at 04:12 PM.
    "And if I could I surely would Stand on the rock that Moses stood"

  6. #106
    Quote Originally Posted by Chex View Post
    So the law doesnt lie.....Social Security (Employment and/or self-employment) means "gross income".
    So the earnings from participation of Social Security are in essence "gross income" as computed under subtitle A?
    So if you dont participate in Social Security then the earnings are not derived from "employment" or "self-employment" (aka Social Security) and therefore do not fall under subtitle A's "gross income"...........NOT TAXABLE INCOME!
    They are not considered "income" for the purpose of Title 26.
    But I already knew this! http://www.community.defendindepende...t=605&start=10

    a job that is statutorily exempt from Social Security

    A Section 218 Agreement is a written voluntary agreement between a State and the Social Security Administration to provide Social Security and Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) or Medicare coverage only for employees of State and local governments. This agreement is authorized under Section 218 of the Social Security Act. Employees covered under a Section 218 Agreement have the same coverage and benefit rights as employees in the private sector. All States have a Section 218 Agreement, but the extent of coverage varies. http://www.ssa.gov/slge/faqs.htm#a0=0

    http://stormthunder.com/#axzz3OWkvRkMZ

    Case Law & Public Documents. http://www.codebusters.org/case-law-...uments-f4.html

    Complaint Review: Jay Adkisson. http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/jay-ad...rusts-t-356944


    I like StSC to be where people can find practical and theoretical merged into prosperity. Especially in the application process it does not go over well to say, I do not participate in Social Security.

  7. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    I like StSC to be where people can find practical and theoretical merged into prosperity. Especially in the application process it does not go over well to say, I do not participate in Social Security.
    I agree but it is a dammed if you do and a dam if you don't.

    WHEN ADAM SENT ME THESE VICTORIES THE OTHER DAY FOR SHARING WITH YOU ALL, he included this note:

    "I made a rookie error on my initial submission of the federal return by excluding Social Security and Medicare tax.
    I corrected this with an amended form and received the remainder as a separate refund.
    I figured this will be helpful for anyone who needs to address a similar mistake."
    "And if I could I surely would Stand on the rock that Moses stood"

  8. #108
    Anonymous commented · January 11, 2015 12:09 ·

    Looks like Chex from STSC chimed in about Social Security....hes copied and pasted our conversation johnny.....hes pasted one of my posts...not yours.
    Looks like maybe hes seeing the light.
    http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/fo...te-hendrickson

    It's possible that Famspear/Jay/jessejames/quatloser is telling us he's behind the Chex/doug555/itsmymoney logins. I suspect he is quite bothered by these real-world examples of IRS wins. In this example a family with about $109,000 in annual income for 2013 [47k+48k+14k] should have paid a minimum $16,000 in federal taxes (including Medicare & SS) had they been endorsing private credit. But thanks to redeeming lawful money ended up paying only $2100. [Deducted of (3200+3200+700) minus refund (5000) = $2100]. And it could have been even less with more lawful money redeemed! http://www.ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_victory.pdf

    All warfare involves deception. And this appears to be a replay attempt of what I've seen at other forums. The fake users will try to manufacture a debate, a controversy. I guess their hope is to somehow damage the targeted user (suitor), make it out like he is the source of the whole problem.
    Last edited by JohnnyCash; 01-12-15 at 05:25 PM.

  9. #109

    Definitely noteworthy! Thanks for sharing that.

    Johnny;

    My perception of the Internet is that it is much larger than you think it is. However it would be flattering if Jay was so distressed by boredom as to troll around here. If you want to PM where you believe Jay is, and a Member moniker I can try to find out if they match up.

  10. #110
    Is Anonymous Jayloser? Well Anonymous Jayloser I take the USC over your propaganda any day.
    "And if I could I surely would Stand on the rock that Moses stood"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •