Page 10 of 16 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 151

Thread: Get Your Billions Back, America: 2014

  1. #91
    Allodial,
    While I did not use that analogy, my response to Alex circled to that fact several times. How can Oregon come up with one set of numbers while IRS comes up with another. Oregon laws states that Oregon tax is based on adjusted gross income as determined on 1040 Line 4.In fact it is the very first item entered on Oregon Form 40. It is the taxable income that is the measure to determin the amount of Oregon tax. SO truly Oregon is not taxing the income but measuring the use of something based on income. We'll see how he responds.

    There are some interesting discussions on the lawfulmoneytrust.com site. There are a few folks getting "Frivolous Position" letters from IRS and State agency.

    The absurd thing is, in order to rectify the Oregon tax, the only thing to do is to repudiate my 1040 as submitted to IRS and has to my judgement been found to be accurate and refund processed. Or I can lie about the amount I put in Line 8 of OR Form 40 to make make the numbers come out as if Oregon was not based on Federal. Even though Alex states that even if there is no Federal Liability a State Liability can exist. I can't see this based on how the form is laid out.

  2. #92
    You can basically do the equivalent of an order to show cause: as in make them show you how taxing you for bills you redeemed for lawful money and were effectively the underwriter could be regarded to give rise to any taxable gain to you? Kind've relates to "conditional acceptance". I would avoid arguing as to the amount or whether you owe or not. I'd ask questions as how why they are arguing or disputing the Federal amount or Federal filing. Specifically why are they creating a controversy over a matter settled in the U.S. Tax Court.

    Re: State Liability
    Sure, State liability could arise from property tax, motor vehicle fees, sales tax, use tax, taxes assessed by the State or even from insufficient State taxes withheld--he isn't saying anything unique .. "it can exist"--true. Did you have any of that State-level kind of tax liability with respect to that filing?

    Presumption
    Of course, if amount of taxable income on the Federal level is the same as the on the State level then the issue overall might be moot. If there is a discrepancy per Oregon Dept. Revenue's "magic abacus" then I'd say there seems to be problem.

    Re: Falsification
    Also I would not falsify any such filing, that's asking for trouble. Perjury in State tax court? Not a good idea maybe?

    Name:  image.png
Views: 4090
Size:  235.6 KB
    Can we has some munnie pwease even doe we issint owed it?
    Last edited by allodial; 06-28-15 at 03:24 AM.
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

  3. #93
    Oregon state IRS stated:
    The return you prepared and filed appears to be based on a position which is frivolous and contains information that on its face indicates that the self assessment is substantially incorrect”.
    What is the position he is refering to? He does not specify what specific information ,”…that on its face indicates that the self assessment is substantially incorrect”.
    The agent is so vague or ambiguous that the party is not able to make a knowledgeble and intelligent reply. Sisk v. Texas parks and wildlife dept. 644 Fed.2d, 1056, 1059 (5th Cir. 1981). (make sure look up the cases)
    Because he is so vague you cannot rely on a fair notice of the allegations for the type of complaint he is alleging against you.
    (identify all the defects and details desired).
    Request a more definite statement from the IRS. Also you can request an extension of time of (30,60 or 90 days) to begin on the day that you receive the more definite statements. Make the request in the interest o f justice. It is also requested to ensure they are a administering existing laws and to ensure they are applied fairly and consistently .
    State that without the more definite statement you cannot make a knowledgeble and intelligent reply. It would also be in violation of due process.
    What taxable income are they refering to?
    Stated, “This references to federal law are Merely for the measurement of taxable income And do not change the fact that a tax is imposed.”
    If you used lawful money throughout the year how can it be “…a fact that a tax is imposed?” How did they measure a taxable income from your lawful income?
    First they have to show you used FRN’s to have them impose a tax.
    How can a tax/user fee be imposed when you have administrative evidence (signed checks under 12USC411) to prove you used lawful money during the year in question and backed by your U.S. Dist. Ct. records ?
    So if they have no way to measure the tax, because 12USC411 is not within the code, how can it be a fact according to them “…that a tax is imposed”?
    also they are under presumption you are trustee to the trust.
    Last edited by Franco; 06-29-15 at 04:01 AM. Reason: added a paragraph

  4. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by Franco View Post
    Oregon state IRS stated: If you used lawful money throughout the year how can it be “…a fact that a tax is imposed?” How did they measure a taxable income from your lawful income? First they have to show you used FRN’s to have them impose a tax. How can a tax/user fee be imposed when you have administrative evidence (signed checks under 12USC411) to prove you used lawful money during the year in question and backed by your U.S. Dist. Ct. records ? So if they have no way to measure the tax, because 12USC411 is not within the code, how can it be a fact according to them “…that a tax is imposed”? also they are under presumption you are trustee to the trust.
    Very well stated Franco: "When a defendant complains of matters that can be clarified and developed during discovery, rather than matters which impede his ability to form a responsive pleading, an order directing the plaintiff to file a more definite statement is not warranted." Sisk v. Texas parks and wildlife dept. 644 Fed.2d, 1056, 1059 (5th Cir. 1981).
    "And if I could I surely would Stand on the rock that Moses stood"

  5. #95
    Imagine, tax court arguing with both U.S. Congress and the U.S. District Court --even arguing with an Article II judge.
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

  6. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by Chex View Post
    Very well stated Franco: "When a defendant complains of matters that can be clarified and developed during discovery, rather than matters which impede his ability to form a responsive pleading, an order directing the plaintiff to file a more definite statement is not warranted." Sisk v. Texas parks and wildlife dept. 644 Fed.2d, 1056, 1059 (5th Cir. 1981).
    The dilemma here is that using the methods the have, rejection under ORS316.992, I will not be the the defendant, but the plaintiff in an appeal. The burden of proof will be on me that lawful money redemption is not frivolous and by inference lawful money is not taxable by the State.

  7. #97

  8. #98
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,596
    Quote Originally Posted by David Neil View Post
    The dilemma here is that using the methods the have, rejection under ORS316.992, I will not be the the defendant, but the plaintiff in an appeal. The burden of proof will be on me that lawful money redemption is not frivolous and by inference lawful money is not taxable by the State.
    Counterclaim.
    The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.

    Lawful Money Trust Website

    Divine Mind Community Call - Sundays 8pm EST

    ONE man or woman can make a difference!

  9. #99
    Have any of you ever sued the IRS for not recognizing your demand for lawful money, adding an assessment, and then refusing to remove it even after shown evidence of your claim of lawful money redemption?

  10. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyCash View Post
    A: Your question isn't income-related but And then factor in that no other theory provides such a complete answer to everything tax-related. It accounts for all the missing pieces:
    • national currency issuance was taxed, why would they stop?
    • why the tax code never defines "income"
    • why the code is so convoluted & uses so many custom-defined terms
    • why those who endorse Fed Reserve currency are convicted
    • why the law makes a distinction between FRNs & Lawful Money
    • why the law still allows redemption in LM
    • why the tax return is voluntary
    • why you have a right to be heard
    • why no lawful money cases adjudicated
    • why they can't bring proof-of-claim
    • why the disinfo agents badmouth it (War by Propaganda)

    And that's just barely scratching the surface. All the data points fit together perfectly. It's the unified field theory of taxation. .
    Mr. Cash can really get you mind going. Why Documents under seal (deeds) do not require consideration for there to be a binding contract

    Doubt as to liability exists where there is a genuine dispute as to the existence or amount of the correct tax debt under the law. If you have a legitimate doubt that you owe part or all of the tax debt, you will need to complete a Form 656-L, Offer in Compromise (Doubt as to Liability).

    Doubt as to liability cannot be disputed or considered if the tax debt has been established by a final court decision or judgment concerning the existence or amount of the assessed tax debt or if the assessed tax debt is based on current law. Submitting an offer application does not guarantee that the IRS will accept your offer. It begins a process of evaluation and verification by the IRS.

    Generally, you will send in a doubt as to liability offer when you were unable to dispute the amount of tax the IRS claims you owe during the time allowed by the Internal Revenue Code or IRS guidelines. Possible reasons for submitting a doubt as to liability offer in compromise include the following: the examiner made a mistake interpreting the tax law, the examiner failed to consider the evidence presented; new evidence is available to support a change to the assessment. Below are some examples of when it may be appropriate to make an offer based on doubt as to liability.

    You must provide a written statement explaining why the tax debt or portion of the tax debt is incorrect. In addition, you must provide supporting documentation or evidence that will help the IRS identify the reason(s) you doubt the accuracy of the tax debt.

    Note: Failing to provide a written statement will cause your offer to be returned with no further consideration.

    Form 656-L
    "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
  •