In the above posts I have cited the recent memorandums and manual that the IRS agent is to utilize in judging any Return as frivolous. One suitor filed for 2010 and had no evidence repository - too much confidence in the law - and received a $5K penalty notice. He published his Libel of Review and things let up on that billing. When he filed for 2011 though, he got a new styled Letter.
The only thing I can think why the $10K is because $5K is for the actual "filing" while the other $5K was from my stupidity of calling in to follow up on the refund due and to talk to those people you have to give your social and name. Stupid me. But again, remember that I am the suitor who has the Notice CP 12 where their own form for calendar year 2010 says they owe the account $10,680.
This has been R4C'd properly using his Libel of Review for evidence repository but I had to pay attention to detail and found the citation is slightly altered. You have to pay attention carefully too, to get this affirmation.
On top is a photo of a Letter from May (2012) with a citation of the friv_tax.pdf file found above and which has no reference to redeeming lawful money as frivolous. But the recent Letter cites a Memo from 2010 in which the letters "redeem" occur three times.
Here is 2010-33 (Page 9).
(6) A taxpayer has been untaxed, detaxed,
or removed or redeemed from the
Federal tax system though the taxpayer remains
a United States citizen or resident, or
similar arguments described as frivolous in
Rev. Rul. 2004?31, 2004?1 C.B. 617.
(12) Federal Reserve Notes are not taxable
income when paid to a taxpayer because
they are not gold or silver and may
not be redeemed for gold or silver.
(21) A taxpayer may use a Form 1099-
OID, Original Issue Discount, (or another
Form 1099 Series information return) as a
financial or other instrument to obtain or
redeem (under a theory of ?redemption?
or ?commercial redemption?) a monetary
payment out of the United States Treasury
or for a refund of tax?
In the recent Letter the agent has resorted to a 2010 citation that seems similar (to the layman/agent anyway) to what we are doing here.
By studying the citations provided in any rendition of the Letter, a suitor can surmise:
Said quote hereinbefore looks to time when I reached the age of majority; and,
I have carefully read your Notice and I cannot find that demanding Lawful Money is a Frivolous Argument; and, it comes down to this simple principle, what is my intent; and, It is my express intent to operate [the] FIRST M. SURNAME in honor...
Resulting in:
They garnished my wifes wages. I wrote a one page letter to the agent. In twenty seven days they zeroed out the balance. This year we received one hundred percent of our increase from state and feds.
I don't buy any of this [IMF Decode conversation context] rhetoric. But then again I am not in the market [to buy into fear].