Page 1 of 19 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 188

Thread: Exactly what does the IRS agent think?

  1. #1

    Exactly what does the IRS agent think?

    I have been updating this opening post so all the major memorandums, notices and updates might be here.




    The best way to discern how an IRS agent is going to interpret your Zero-Income Return based on Title 12 U.S.C. §411 is to study his Required Reading. His boss tells him what he has to read, to train him about the guidelines about when to issue a warning or $5K penalty for a frivolous filing.

    I invite even the most skeptical readers to find a directive about redeeming lawful money as framed in the Fed Act and Title 12.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=AM...otices&f=false - CFR Frivolous notices


    https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-news/ir-05-064.pdf

    Notice 2007-61

    http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-07-30.pdf
    http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/3...tionsmemor.pdf

    Notice 2007-30

    http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-08-14.pdf
    http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/349...tionsmemor.pdf

    Notice 2008-14

    https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb10-17.pdf

    Notice 2010-33 is inside this pdf:

    https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb10-17.pdf

    Notice 2011-004


    To save time I suggest keywords to search:


    lawful
    redeem
    redemption
    Title 12
    411
    Last edited by David Merrill; 12-03-16 at 08:27 PM.

  2. #2
    Hi David,

    Okay, I'm a 'noob' here and maybe this topic has been vetted and fully researched...however, I've searched the above documents in your post and found a reference in the last one to a US v. Rickman case where it states:

    "United States v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182, 184 (10th Cir. 1980) - The court affirmed the conviction for willfully failing to file a return and rejected the taxpayer's argument "the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, Sub Section 8, United States Constitution."..."

    Please comment and help me to understand the context. Thnx.

    Hbert

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Within the confines of my own skin.
    Posts
    752
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    The best way to discern how an IRS agent is going to interpret your Zero-Income Return based on Title 12 U.S.C. §411 is to study his Required Reading. His boss tells him what he has to read, to train him about the guidelines about when to issue a warning or $5K penalty for a frivolous filing.

    I invite even the most skeptical readers to find a directive about redeeming lawful money as framed in the Fed Act and Title 12.

    http://www.irs.gov/taxexemptbond/20k...134362,00.html - notices

    http://www.irs.treas.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-10-33.pdf
    http://img862.imageshack.us/img862/3...tionsmemor.pdf
    Notice 2010-33

    http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...168637,00.html

    Notice 2007-61

    http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-07-30.pdf
    http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/3...tionsmemor.pdf

    Notice 2007-30

    http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-08-14.pdf
    http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/349...tionsmemor.pdf

    http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-ccdm/cc-2011-004.pdf
    http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf


    To save time I suggest keywords to search:

    lawful
    redeem
    redemption
    Title 12
    411
    David, there is a lot of links here to different resources, can you please put a side note to these links to point out the specific areas that are related to your post?
    Not that I am a statutory employee required to file for the name though.

    Thank you.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Hbert997 View Post
    Hi David,

    Okay, I'm a 'noob' here and maybe this topic has been vetted and fully researched...however, I've searched the above documents in your post and found a reference in the last one to a US v. Rickman case where it states:

    "United States v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182, 184 (10th Cir. 1980) - The court affirmed the conviction for willfully failing to file a return and rejected the taxpayer's argument "the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, Sub Section 8, United States Constitution."..."

    Please comment and help me to understand the context. Thnx.

    Hbert
    Gary RICKMAN was obviously not demanding redemption of lawful money. Two case decisions should be considered when understanding the demand.

    Quote Originally Posted by US v Rickman; 638 F.2d 182

    In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money.
    and

    Quote Originally Posted by US v Ware; 608 F.2d 400

    United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.
    Good Catch!!

    I appreciate that. The first thing to know is that Congress has the power to define money. They define it for the States to be metal coin too. Ergo - In the exercise of that power... The Court has the authority to interpret and quite clearly, federal reserve notes are redeemable in lawful money, but are not necessarily lawful money.

    There is a lot to be said on that but it is off topic here. What we are looking at is the instructions that an IRS agent gets and I had not noticed the January 1, rendition until yesterday while searching around. So thanks for looking for me - saved me a little reading.

    You can get a look for yourselves though. I have attached Rickman in full.

    Putting that into the recent rendition of Frivolous Notices tells me that the IRS has been watching SJC and minding Shoonra and my debates over the interpretation of Rickman and Ware. Primarily though Gary RICKMAN did not make demands with his paychecks so he was not applying remedy as prescribed in the Fed Act.


    Regards,

    David Merrill.


    P.S. Motla68;

    The common thread is that the IRS agents get training through notices. Those are the Notices about the Frivolous Filing Penalty - guidelines on when the IRS agent is to attach the fine. I will arrange them chronologically and note some details.
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Last edited by David Merrill; 03-25-11 at 10:35 PM.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Treefarmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    in the woods known to some as Tanasi
    Posts
    476
    Blog Entries
    14
    Thank you for attaching US vs Rickman David.
    That was an interesting read.

    I think you are right about the IRS notices.
    The notices seem to be the policy which the IRS agents follow.
    The IRS gives public notice of its policies in those documents, and then its agents enforce those policies.
    No tax payer can reasonably say that he didn't know what the rules were, since the policy rules are spelled out in the notices.

    Bright blessings
    Treefarmer

    There is power in the blood of Jesus

  6. #6
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,415
    within the United States being the key Phrase.....
    The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.

    https://www.lawfulmoneytrust.com

    ONE man or woman can make a difference!

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Treefarmer View Post
    Thank you for attaching US vs Rickman David.
    That was an interesting read.

    I think you are right about the IRS notices.

    The notices seem to be the policy which the IRS agents follow.

    The IRS gives public notice of its policies in those documents, and then its agents enforce those policies.

    No tax payer can reasonably say that he didn't know what the rules were, since the policy rules are spelled out in the notices.

    Bright blessings
    You are quite welcome. If I may say so myself; this thread and that opening post is quite the Find!


    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Joseph View Post
    within the United States being the key Phrase.....
    Your keenness about boundaries, abutment, easement and diversity is greatly appreciated around here MJ!


    Succinctly put though Gary RICKMAN did nothing by way of making his demand for lawful money at the proper juncture, by non-or-restricting his endorsement of private credit on the backside of his paychecks.
    Last edited by David Merrill; 03-25-11 at 11:46 PM.

  8. #8
    This is where I want to mention a fellow (before he became a suitor) in NY was at a friend's party where his friend's sister is an IRS attorney. He overheard her say, There is a group of people in Colorado who do not pay income tax, they are doing it correctly. He immediately thought about me, having read about me on the Internet.

    He tried to keep her divulging information but she clammed up. He tells me that the next time he saw her he was hoping she would open up about it again, but no sugar.

  9. #9
    I will look over the Rickman case carefully this weekend...thank you for posting it. And, also for explaining that he didn't DEMAND his paycheck to be lawful money pursuant to Title 12 USC Sub. Section 411.

    Now for the bigger question...(at least for me)! Do you see it possible to "retroactively" apply this remedy to years past in which there is controversy? For instance, for several years past I didn't file...then, upon poor "legal" advice, filed for those years and then have been garnished/levied...even to the tune of substantial $$$'s. According to their files, I still owe for back years and I have had to file for banko to buy time. Now with my head back out, finding this remedy has been a godsend to my current situation. However, can I nullify/void/alter going back in history using this remedy?

    Hbert
    Last edited by Hbert997; 03-26-11 at 01:49 AM.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Hbert997 View Post
    I will look over the Rickman case carefully this weekend...thank you for posting it. And, also for explaining that he didn't DEMAND his paycheck to be lawful money pursuant to Title 12 USC Sub. Section 411.

    Now for the bigger question...(at least for me)! Do you see it possible to "retroactively" apply this remedy to years past in which there is controversy? For instance, for several years past I didn't file...then, upon poor "legal" advice, filed for those years and then have been garnished/levied...even to the tune of substantial $$$'s. According to their files, I still owe for back years and I have had to file for banko to buy time. Now with my head back out, finding this remedy has been a godsend to my current situation. However, can I nullify/void/alter going back in history using this remedy?

    Hbert
    The accusation would be a general fraud by omission. But then, the remedy was written in 1913.

    Suitors are a brain trust. This fellow got both years Refunded.

    What has happened here today - that has come to light though - is that the IRS has brought up Rickman in the light to misdirect IRS agents to attach the $5K penalty for filing for a Refund by remedy.
    Last edited by David Merrill; 03-26-11 at 02:17 AM.

Posting Permissions

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