Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 32

Thread: Patriots win again - 2013 lawful money tax filing

  1. #1

    Patriots win again - 2013 lawful money tax filing

    I've been a non-filer for many years, making & depositing lawful money (not FRNs), and thus no requirement to file, even though I do get these 1099-MISC reports. For example THIS ONE I received for TY2012 and never filed a return, no IRS issues afterward.

    But then the quatlude gave me an idea. What's better than paying no tax & not filing? Yep, filing with spouse so family can get a bigger refund. So for TY2013 we made use of the PERSON, as secondary filer.

    PRIMARY filer: $47k in W2 wages & $14k in pension/annuity. ($14k in redeemed lawful money)
    SECONDARY filer: $48k in 1099-MISC income yet none entered on the 1040. (All $48k redeemed lawful money)
    Total of $109k in reported income. Federal refund of $5k:

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

    VICTORY?
    From the experience of others, we see the IRS typically matching their database records to come back 6 to 8 months later with a letter inquiring about the reported "income" not being entered on the 1040 return (if it really was federal income). For example, here's the experience of David L. who received 1099 info reports for tax year 2010 yet didn't file a return at all, and the IRS inquired about his missing return in November (2nd inquiry actually) of the following year. It's now January 2015, 10 months after our filing, and not a peep from the IRS.

    It's in this "mourning after" period that the CtC-method usually fails. HENDRICKSON shows little of what happens after filing his so-called "zero-income" return; the CP letters, garnishments, penalties & levies. In fact, it appears I am the only successful CtC Warrior over there.

    Another confirmed victory for lawful money.
    Last edited by JohnnyCash; 01-16-15 at 04:17 AM.

  2. #2
    Thank you Johnny!


    A suitor in trouble with Pete's CtC flew him in as a house guest. Then in the suitor's office he and I discussed Pete. Pete was apparently coming to the realization that there is an inviolate "right to be heard" principal in operation within the Voluntary Compliance administration of the US Income Tax.

    This is why there are so many Refund checks and so many times they are recalled, after the IRS has a chance to assess the Return in light of 1099 information. Pete's CtC method never offers anybody any law with which to argue the reassessment. - Only some of the worn out and repeatedly defeated slogans that any attorney will be sanctioned for bringing up.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyCash View Post
    I've been a non-filer for many years, making & depositing lawful money (not FRNs), and thus no requirement to file, even though I do get these 1099-MISC reports. For example THIS ONE I received for TY2012 and never filed a return, no IRS issues afterward.

    But then the quatlude gave me an idea. What's better than paying no tax & not filing? Yep, filing with spouse so family can get a bigger refund. So for TY2013 we made use of the PERSON, as secondary filer.

    PRIMARY filer: $47k in W2 wages & $14k in pension/annuity. ($14k in redeemed lawful money)
    SECONDARY filer: $48k in 1099-MISC income yet none entered on the 1040. (All $48k redeemed lawful money)
    Total of $109k in reported income. Federal refund of $5k:

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

    VICTORY?
    From the experience of others, we see the IRS typically matching their database records to come back 6 to 8 months later with a letter inquiring about the reported "income" not being entered on the 1040 return (if it really was federal income). For example, here's the experience of David L. who received 1099 info reports for tax year 2010 yet didn't file a return at all, and the IRS inquired about his missing return in November (2nd inquiry actually) of the following year. It's now January 2015, 10 months after our filing, and not a peep from the IRS.

    It's in this "mourning after" period that the CtC-method usually fails. HENDRICKSON shows little of what happens after filing his so-called "zero-income" return; the CP letters, garnishments, penalties & levies. In fact, it appears I am the only successful CtC Warrior over there.

    Another confirmed victory for lawful money.
    Why didn't filer demand lawful money for GROSS W2 wages of $47K?
    Last edited by doug555; 01-16-15 at 10:29 PM.

  4. #4
    I don't know, Primary filer is not here right now to ask. I'm guessing the amount of redeemed lawful money checks totalled $14k for the year (for ex. $7000 x 2 checks).

    BTW, quatlude agrees with me the IRS is likely to send a letter asking about no return (or income not entered on the 1040):
    The 1099-MISC for 2012 is for more than $79,000 of non-employee compensation, and that's likely to result in a letter asking about a return, but it's still early. Returns for 2012 that were on an automatic extension to file were only due last October, so it could be months before the IRS notices that there's no return for that SSN (assuming that the SSN on the 1099 is correct) and sends out a letter.

    I don't really know how the IRS processes these things, but I would expect that it would depend to a great extent on how JC responds. No response might result in nothing, or it might result in an SFR and a notice of deficiency based on the 1099.

    Or there might be a series of administrative summonses to get bank records and information from businesses that have sent him Forms 1099 in the past, followed by a notice of deficiency.

    If JC responds with gibberish or attitude, it might go straight to criminal investigations.

    I don't know if there's any way to predict the timing or process for these kinds of things.

    LPC
    That is to say, ordinary Americans endorsing Federal Reserve currency get the IRS letters, not me. I use lawful money. No IRS letter indicates the IRS agrees that lawful money is not Title 26 income.
    Last edited by JohnnyCash; 01-17-15 at 06:43 PM.

  5. #5
    Congrats on the win. Doug may be suggesting you could have done better, that you're only half the distance to the goal, maybe some trick involved here. There was about $7100 withheld in various federal taxes according to the W-2 form. Minus the $5000 refund means you paid about $2100 to the system. Now I'm not saying you're a wolf in sheep's underpants, or if they even wear underwear, but as an outlet for ideas ...

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Noah View Post
    Congrats on the win. Doug may be suggesting you could have done better, that you're only half the distance to the goal, maybe some trick involved here. There was about $7100 withheld in various federal taxes according to the W-2 form. Minus the $5000 refund means you paid about $2100 to the system. Now I'm not saying you're a wolf in sheep's underpants, or if they even wear underwear, but as an outlet for ideas ...
    Correct. If this demand "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)" had been on record since Jan 1, 2013, then this filer could have gotten all $7100 FITW refunded. So, evidently, "co-mingling" of funds is not an issue. The $2100 was legitimately paid as a "usage fee" for the FRNs that were used.

    And I now think that JohnnyCash's position that the IRS will probably not dispute 1040's with lawful money demands is correct.

    It would stir up a more formal judicial recognition of this remedy, and thereby increase its publicity and use.

    So, I am very grateful for what JohnnyCash has done and posted here for all of us to see that lawful money demands are being honored by the IRS, despite any "mistakes" being made by the filers.

  7. #7
    There's nothing to stop the mistaken party from correcting the mistake...unless it's a lack of knowledge.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by ohiofoiarequest View Post
    There's nothing to stop the mistaken party from correcting the mistake...unless it's a lack of knowledge.
    Correct.

    BTW, I just updated post10417 for those planning on doing a 1040 Online Filing for last year.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by doug555 View Post
    Why didn't filer demand lawful money for GROSS W2 wages of $47K?

    Filer may always send in an ammended return.


    For those who desire to RLM (Redeem Lawful Money) before evidence of redemption was established use, "...Redeemed in lawful money nunc pro tunc."

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by doug555 View Post
    Correct.

    BTW, I just updated post10417 for those planning on doing a 1040 Online Filing for last year.
    doug555....I just wanna say --> YOU ROCK, OL' MAN !!!!

    THANX ALOT !!

Posting Permissions

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