Article: Welcome!

[martin earl]

I am not saying that is incorrect, only that it does not make sense to me. Let's say you start redeeming lawful money in March; you would report for January, February and March but you would not report any income after March. You would forfeit the Withholdings against your tax liability for the three months, but you would report all your Withholdings so that you would get a Refund for the remainder. This keeps your employer out of the thick of it. Your employer will see you as a normal taxpaying employee unless you or the IRS informs him otherwise.

I completely agree there is no need to file a 1040 after the first year of Lawful money redemption. I also agree with you that there is no "income" after the demand for lawful money and non-endorsement has been made.

My issue has been explaining lawful money redemption to numerous IRS preparers and accountants (family members of mine make a good 'money' of their practices before the IRS), the ONLY way they can comprehend the issue is from a Taxable income source or a non-taxable income source. Since "Obligations of the US are not taxable income" they still maintain I have "income" but not from a taxable source.

They see anything that has commercial value (even lawful money of face value) as "income". The very reason we keep a record of lawful money demand is to prove the fact we do not have "income from a taxable source" and our possessions (including labor) are not "first leaned" by the Federal Reserve.

The taxable source would be the Federal Reserve and our (taxable event) endorsement of it.

The non-taxable source would be the Treasury via lawful money demand.

When explaining lawful money redemption to people who know IRS terms, it is nearly impossible to convince them I have no 'income'. But using their own definitions and regulations, I can show them my income remains an "obligation of the United States" and therefore, non-taxable, when I demand lawful money redemption and 12-USC-411.

Does that make more sense?