Get Your Billions Back, America: 2014

[allodial]

I believe the demand for lawful money isn't quite on point. AFAIK one is to #1 Redeem a bill for lawful money or #2 denominate transactions in lawful money. You start changing the verbiage too much and getting away from the applicable statute they might spot your error and come for "blood".

To reiterate: the checks would be redeemed for lawful money. Demanding lawful money isn't in the applicable statute.

[David Neil]

I believe the demand for lawful money isn't quite on point. AFAIK one is to #1 Redeem a bill for lawful money or #2 denominate transactions in lawful money. You start changing the verbiage too much and getting away from the applicable statute they might spot your error and come for "blood".

To reiterate: the checks would be redeemed for lawful money. Demanding lawful money isn't in the applicable statute.

Perhaps I was unclear or don't understand. My 1040/OR form 40 is based on my redemption of lawful money and is denoted as "demand lawful money reduction" on line 21 of 1040.

My checks are always stamped "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12USC411,95(a)2". Is this somehow wrong?

[allodial]

12 USC 411 pertains to the redemption for lawful money without reference to 'demanding' lawful money. Your redemption should put the bill into Treasury right and proper as lawful money. If the statute pertains to redemption and you are speaking of a demand for lawful money (a draft or a claim). That is, perhaps you need to explain to State of Oregon that you redeemed those checks/drafts for lawful money and that principal isn't subject to tax?

If the IRS approved the deduction, then Oregon DoR needs to do the same.

Paragraph 5 of that letter is 'screaming' "administrative law" --that the Oregon revenue department is probably subject to the plenary powers of the Oregon legislature.

[Chex]

12 USC 411 pertains to the redemption for lawful money without reference to 'demanding' lawful money. Your redemption should put the bill into Treasury the IRS approved the deduction, then Oregon DoR needs to do the same.Paragraph 5 of that letter is 'screaming' "administrative law" --that the Oregon revenue department is probably subject to the plenary powers of the Oregon legislature.

IRS jurisdiction matter.................................. Really?


The United States Code is the codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States. It is divided by broad subjects into 53 titles and published by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives. The U.S. Code was first published in 1926. The next main edition was published in 1934, and subsequent main editions have been published every six years since 1934. In between editions, annual cumulative supplements are published in order to present the most current information.

In fact its Alex Anderson making a contract; the state "cannot" speak.

[allodial]

I'm unaware of pointing out a jurisdiction issue except the Oregon Dept. of Revenue tax franchise AFAIK should be harmonizing with the IRS on income tax. The key is principal is not taxed. Call Oregon Department of Revenue and tell them you need their U.S./IRS tax ID for your records, they will probably decline but admit to having one.

Alex Anderson is in bold + is showing he is working within the Oregon Department of Revenue from the signature. Oregon Department of Revenue seems to be the collective name of the 'enforcement sureties' for the Oregon "tax code".

[Chex]

According to live in the know Alex Anderson also lives a double life at 1040 Tax Service & Accounting probably scamming more folks out of currency.

[David Neil]

Chex, it does appear that Alex Anderson is making a contract. From what I can tell his letter is not a "Notice of Definciency" as described in ORS 305.265 but I cannot yet tell when section 10(c)(C) kicks in.

As I continue to research I believe I have found the catch 22. My return is being rejected because of ORS 305.265 10(c)(C) " If the department may impose a penalty under ORS 316.992 (Penalty for filing incorrect return that is based on frivolous position or is intended to delay or impede administration) (1) with respect to the report or return".

The conditions for used in applying 316.992, in my opinion are:
316.992(1)(b) "Contains information that on its face indicates the self assessment is substantially incorrect"; 316.992(2)(a) "A position is frivolous"; 316.992(5)(c) "An argument that wages or salary are not includable in taxable income"

So what I am seeing is that "on its face" my lawful money reduction on 1040 line 21 fits 316.992(5)(c). It appears to me that I must rebut "on its face" and that wages and salary... is not what Lawful Money Reduction is

My approach is focusing on on 2 Sections of ORS

§ 316.012¹ "Terms have same meaning as in federal laws"

If terms have the same meaning as federal law the definition for Frivolous Arguments is found in IRC 4.10.12.1.1. The closest to the ORS I believe they are sighting is 4.10.12.1.1.1.A Wages/Receipts Not Income. (There is a more extensive listing at http://www.irs.gov/irb/2010-17_IRB/ar13.html not sure which is the most inclusive or up to date.) However, there is no mention of Lawful Money Redemption and none of the other definitions fit. 4.10.12.1.1 also states that "The return MUST be frivolous for a penalty to be asserted..."


and

§ 316.013¹ "Determination of federal adjusted gross income

Unless the context requires otherwise and notwithstanding ORS 316.012 (Terms have same meaning as in federal laws), whenever, in the calculation of Oregon taxable income, reference to the taxpayers federal adjusted gross income is required to be made, the taxpayers federal adjusted gross income shall be as determined under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code as they may be in effect for the tax year of the taxpayer without any of the additions, subtractions or other modifications or adjustments required under this chapter and other laws of this state applicable to personal income taxation.

My evidence that gross income was calculated correctly is the fact that IRS accepted my return and refunded my withholding. (I have requested the IRS print out of my 2014 return). I would then say that for my return to be accepted and refund issued, my reduction for lawful money redemption must not be included in definitions of frivolous. If it were frivolous I would have also gotten a notice (

3176C)

and a penalty access ("The return MUST be frivolous for a penalty to be asserted..."). So if terms are the same and lawful money redemption is not a frivolous term and if my adjusted gross income is correct then I properly Stated my Gross Income on Oregon form 40.

Now I jsut have to make myself clear and respond to this latest error refuting the claimed facts.

[Franco]

Neil ,I was reading that Oregon Department of Revenue letter sent to you.
It states,”the Oregon Constitution gives our legislative, in such laws,
to refer to laws of the United States. However these references do not
require you to have a federal tax liability in order to have a state tax liability.
This references to federal law are merely for the measurement of taxable income
And do not change the fact that a tax is imposed.”
Note: See the 1789 judiciary act saving to suitors act page 77 chapter 20. It states you have a right to a common law remedy , where the common law is competent to give it.
Through the common law you have access to debt free currency.
Its guaranteed to us in the 1st sentence of the federal reserve act.
The federal reserve act section 16 provides remedy for people who don’t want to deal with elastic currency.
Section 16 was codified into U.S.C. in title 12 section 411. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand and they shall be redeemed in federal reserve currency notes.
Now in accordance with his letter he states that “…references to federal law are merely for the measurement of taxable income …”
Provide copies of 1789 judiciary act and 12USC section 411.

[allodial]

Very good input. However, having studied tax law (in international scope) quite thoroughly, there are two very fundamental principals worth nothing:

1. Principal/trees = not taxed
2. Interest/fruit = taxed.

If they are measuring taxable income from the Federal, then he should find Oregon Department of Revenue arriving at the same amount of taxable income.

[David Neil]

Thanks Franco.
I too have concerns about that paragraph, but my thoughts did note allow me to arrive to your conclusion. Thank you for opening my eyes.