Quote Originally Posted by doug555 View Post
IMM: I made a pseudo-transaction-based demand to the U.S. Treasury almost 2 years ago (before I started novating the paychecks/deposit slips with 12 USC 411). The letter denotes 'all events' (deposits/withdrawals/etc) are to be redeemed in lawful money in the same manner as your suggested 'all transactions' demand. I'm hoping this letter is commensurate with your method. However, the novation does not include 95a(2) on deposit slips/checks; just the 'standard redemption' language of USC 411. So when you say 'on the record', is the method I used above in accordance with this maxim? And if that is true, wouldn't my FIRST paycheck redeemed in Lawful Money for that given year be inclusive in the Gross Pay amount to be redeemed in Lawful Money?

IMO, a "letter" does not fit the Hearsay Rule Exception (6)(B).

IMM: That Hearsay Rule 803 (the 'not logic' behind it) is really confusing. Gee, go figure. Regardless, after re-reading my letter to the Treasury, there is no mention of 'All transactions' or 'All payments' made to me. It's more of, all 'Net Pay events' are to be redeemed in Lawful Money'. So that appears to be my first mistake of which I believe I can modify with another Demand letter stating the proper Demand language (whatever that may be - need to research examples to get it right - if you have links from other posts handy I'm all ears/eyes). So given this conundrum that it may be a slippery slope to ask for ALL FITW to be refunded w/o originally demanding ALL Gross Pay be RILM, I'm thinking I still may be able to claim a RILM reduction on the NET deposits. Do you agree? Bottom line: I don't want to ask for something that I can't feel comfortable backing up with almost empirical evidence. I've already been torched big-time by 'them'.


IMM: So it's the Gross Pay that should be noted as paid in Lawful Money, based on the Lawful Money redemption evidence. Correct?

Nothing from the Corporations is "paid in Lawful Money". They all offer only FRNs. We must always redeem all of that after those transactions occur. IMO, that is what the annual 1040 "accounting" is for. Gross Pay must be demanded in lawful money -- NOT Net Pay. Do NOT also include Net Pay in your total... to me that would be "double-dipping" IMO.

IMM: Got it. However, given my answer here in number 1 above i.e. regarding the pseudo-transaction-based Treasury demand letter where I basically made a Demand for 'Net Pay only' w/o realizing it, does the Schedule now change to only asking for the 'Net Pay' as a reduction? Not sure of what I can legally claim as a reduction. Like I said, rather play it safe than sorry. So if it's a 'partial reduction' based on 'Net Pay', so be it. Problem is that I have 2 years now of demanding Lawful Money for 'Net Pay only' transactions, if that's how it's being interpreted by 'them' based upon my Treasury Letter.

A secondary question about 'the paychecks/deposit slip amounts': If the proper Demand letter (RILM all transactions, i.e. starting with Gross Pay) was made, is there any calculating of the actual check amounts/deposits to be made regarding the Schedule? Or is that just evidence that ALL transactions were made in Lawful Money? In other words, the 'Net' amounts need not be computed in the actual Line 21 amount because THAT amount is a 'Gross Pay amount' (unless a partial Demand was made like mine, i.e. 'Net amounts' based on my ill-advised Treasury letter).

Thoughts welcome here.

IMM: Ok, so you stated in an earlier post that FITW would be the only reimbursed withholding entry. However, it appears that the Employment Taxes are also to be taken as a Lawful Money deduction in the Schedule (as in the example - thank you for including that example for clarity!). So perhaps you are saying that IRS will determine that Employment Taxes are not to be refunded? But WE should include them as an amount to be included in the LM reduction on the 1040 via the Supporting Schedule, correct?

YES. IMO, those Employment Taxes amounts were rightly presumed to be FRNs and should be redeemed. Don't you agree?

IMM: Yes. And because the Employment Tax amounts are ALSO being taxed based on Gross Pay (double-dipping for them), then if demand was made properly on Gross Pay then then the RILM deduction for Employment Tax amounts is valid. However, the 'federal privilege' of someday participating in those Employment benefits makes it an unavoidable tax (regardless of RILM). Do you agree with my explanation as it relates to yours, so to speak?

But you cannot expect a refund of that because you are contracting to get its benefit, aren't you?

IMM: Agree. I alluded to that in number 3 just above (i.e. 'contract', 'federal privilege' for SS/Med).

If I am wrong on this, please, everyone on this blog, raise your objections.

Listen, if you do not understand this, you will be easy picking for anyone to come along and trap you into admitting you committed a "crime" when you actually didn't.

Just read George Orwell's 1984... 2+2=5. Right?

IMM: I DO recognize that and I appreciate you reminding me of that fact. I suppose I should feel lucky that I've only had to pay enormous 6702 penalties instead of (like PH), going to jail. That's why I'm trying to get it right even if I have to ask for a partial reduction, given your thoughts and others regarding the answers/questions I posed just above.

Thanks again.




Doug, my replies again in RED above. Thank you for this back-and-forth. I think it's educational for all of us.