Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 54

Thread: I received a 3176C 'frivolous letter' for 2013 1040x Amended return with LM demand

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    in an intended free America
    Posts
    100

    I received a 3176C 'frivolous letter' for 2013 1040x Amended return with LM demand

    Well folks, all is not well for me in LM land. Probably bit off more than I could chew, but regardless. Let me explain...

    Filed a regular (late) 1040 for 2013 in December 2014. I had to file quickly for reasons I won't get into here. Then, since I had redeemed ALL of my checks in lawful money for 2013, I filed an amended 1040x including the lawful money deduction end of February 2015. Probably should have let it go, but there it is. Unfortunately today I received a 3176C letter stating that I have submitted a 'return or purported return claiming one or more frivolous positions'.

    So I'm supposed to file a 'corrected return' within 30 days or they will start the collection process. But I've ALREADY filed an original return! And where does it say taking a lawful money deduction is 'frivolous'. And this coming off just receiving my LM REFUND for 2014!!! So surely mentioning the 2014 refund in my defense of 2013 will draw red flags for THAT return, no?

    I'm beside myself. I'm considering calling them to explain that I have already filed a return. I can't file again, right? Where is their evidence that taking a LM deduction is 'frivolous'? They can surely DENY the amended refund, but to call it frivolous and punish me for another $5000?!! I've been down this road too many times with CTC returns and I DO NOT WANT TO PAY THAT AGAIN! At best I'd like to stalemate them into not collecting.

    Any suggestions are welcome. I'm also considering contacting Marc Stevens as well, but I know David and others have great ideas here as well.
    imm

    itsmymoney

    Posts: 212
    Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 3:34 pm

  2. #2
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,507
    Quote Originally Posted by itsmymoney View Post
    Well folks, all is not well for me in LM land. Probably bit off more than I could chew, but regardless. Let me explain...

    Filed a regular (late) 1040 for 2013 in December 2014. I had to file quickly for reasons I won't get into here. Then, since I had redeemed ALL of my checks in lawful money for 2013, I filed an amended 1040x including the lawful money deduction end of February 2015. Probably should have let it go, but there it is. Unfortunately today I received a 3176C letter stating that I have submitted a 'return or purported return claiming one or more frivolous positions'.

    So I'm supposed to file a 'corrected return' within 30 days or they will start the collection process. But I've ALREADY filed an original return! And where does it say taking a lawful money deduction is 'frivolous'. And this coming off just receiving my LM REFUND for 2014!!! So surely mentioning the 2014 refund in my defense of 2013 will draw red flags for THAT return, no?

    I'm beside myself. I'm considering calling them to explain that I have already filed a return. I can't file again, right? Where is their evidence that taking a LM deduction is 'frivolous'? They can surely DENY the amended refund, but to call it frivolous and punish me for another $5000?!! I've been down this road too many times with CTC returns and I DO NOT WANT TO PAY THAT AGAIN! At best I'd like to stalemate them into not collecting.

    Any suggestions are welcome. I'm also considering contacting Marc Stevens as well, but I know David and others have great ideas here as well.
    imm

    itsmymoney

    Posts: 212
    Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 3:34 pm
    Beard v commissioner Read it. That is the basis most likely of their claim. I think beard argued on exchange theory.

    A few phone calls and perhaps a letter or two should clear up the matter.

    I have been down this road. Read their arguments regarding zero returns. Most likely they are relying on those Supreme Court rulings. Before you say I did not file a zero return do yourself a favor and go read the foregoing.

    Regards
    MJ
    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!

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    in an intended free America
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Joseph View Post
    Beard v commissioner Read it. That is the basis most likely of their claim. I think beard argued on exchange theory.

    A few phone calls and perhaps a letter or two should clear up the matter.

    I have been down this road. Read their arguments regarding zero returns. Most likely they are relying on those Supreme Court rulings. Before you say I did not file a zero return do yourself a favor and go read the foregoing.

    Regards
    MJ
    Michael,

    Thank you for responding so quickly.

    I read 'Beard', and have before but it was a good refresher.

    The 1040x did not zero-out all tax liability. I simply stated a LM negative offset in column B (Net Change) on Line 1 which is the 'Adjusted Gross Income' line. I was left with a tax liability but much less than the original. Perhaps you can clarify your comment "Before you say I did not file a zero return do yourself a favor and go read the foregoing."

    The 1040x does not have a 'Line 21' to enter the LM negative offset, therefore I stated the offset on Line 1. Now there is a Line 7 'credits' and a Line 10 'other taxes' but they do not appear to apply to the LM deduction. I also did not think it prudent to place the offset in Line 2 (itemized deductions or standard deduction).

    Frankly, when I decided to send an amended LM return I was hesitant to do so given my history we these criminals. So now I need the proper strategy and responses to avert this.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,507
    Quote Originally Posted by itsmymoney View Post
    Michael,

    Thank you for responding so quickly.

    I read 'Beard', and have before but it was a good refresher.

    The 1040x did not zero-out all tax liability. I simply stated a LM negative offset in column B (Net Change) on Line 1 which is the 'Adjusted Gross Income' line. I was left with a tax liability but much less than the original. Perhaps you can clarify your comment "Before you say I did not file a zero return do yourself a favor and go read the foregoing."

    The 1040x does not have a 'Line 21' to enter the LM negative offset, therefore I stated the offset on Line 1. Now there is a Line 7 'credits' and a Line 10 'other taxes' but they do not appear to apply to the LM deduction. I also did not think it prudent to place the offset in Line 2 (itemized deductions or standard deduction).

    Frankly, when I decided to send an amended LM return I was hesitant to do so given my history we these criminals. So now I need the proper strategy and responses to avert this.
    You are welcome.

    I am familiar with the tact. I have never used it but can see it has value for one who understand what he is doing. Also see US v Rifen. Read Beard carefully. Remember at common law I can prosecute from my court - with two "good faith" notices and silence I have my judgement - I only need enforcement. Read between the lines and you will see without me telling you.

    Clarification on statement: I know you did not file a zero return...that does not matter one bit to the argument of friv filing. Myself I just called a couple of times got a very nice lady on the phone and talked her thru the agencies mistake. I have posted extensively in these forums concerning the fact that the front line people are mostly ignorant. Treat them nicely and they will return the favor. Remember the call is being recorded - that is a good thing. Especially if a MISTAKE has occurred.

    As for my part, I did not wait, I called immediately. Of course I could not accept their notice so I wrote them a letter thanking them for their good faith notice but kindly refusing on the cause of the incorrect presumption of obligation.

    The trustee is ALWAYS presumed guilty and must prove his/her innocence. The creator of the use [CQU] is making a demand for return of ledger upon a "presumed trustee".

    Again, I don't follow the tact used in this return - i can see its merits but I can't understand it and therefore I don't use what I don't comprehend and can't understand. I keep it very simple. I look forward to the day when i can have a face to face sit down with one of their agents - I was attempting to gain such an audience but alas they wanted to just talk to me on the phone.

    1. If you read Beard what was faulty concerning the argument?
    2. In US v. Rifen what is faulty concerning that argument?

    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 that “the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, § 8, United States Constitution.”

    3. Can you point out the flaw in RICKMAN's argument?


    Regards,
    MJ
    Last edited by Michael Joseph; 04-21-15 at 03:03 PM.
    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!

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    in an intended free America
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Joseph View Post
    You are welcome.

    I am familiar with the tact. I have never used it but can see it has value for one who understand what he is doing. Also see US v Rifen. Read Beard carefully. Remember at common law I can prosecute from my court - with two "good faith" notices and silence I have my judgement - I only need enforcement. Read between the lines and you will see without me telling you.

    Clarification on statement: I know you did not file a zero return...that does not matter one bit to the argument of friv filing. Myself I just called a couple of times got a very nice lady on the phone and talked her thru the agencies mistake. I have posted extensively in these forums concerning the fact that the front line people are mostly ignorant. Treat them nicely and they will return the favor. Remember the call is being recorded - that is a good thing. Especially if a MISTAKE has occurred.

    As for my part, I did not wait, I called immediately. Of course I could not accept their notice so I wrote them a letter thanking them for their good faith notice but kindly refusing on the cause of the incorrect presumption of obligation.

    The trustee is ALWAYS presumed guilty and must prove his/her innocence. The creator of the use [CQU] is making a demand for return of ledger upon a "presumed trustee".

    Again, I don't follow the tact used in this return - i can see its merits but I can't understand it and therefore I don't use what I don't comprehend and can't understand. I keep it very simple. I look forward to the day when i can have a face to face sit down with one of their agents - I was attempting to gain such an audience but alas they wanted to just talk to me on the phone.

    1. If you read Beard what was faulty concerning the argument?
    2. In US v. Rifen what is faulty concerning that argument?

    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 that “the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, § 8, United States Constitution.”

    3. Can you point out the flaw in RICKMAN's argument?


    Regards,
    MJ

    Michael,

    Quite the challenge you have posed! I accept. I am particularly interested in the 'prosecute my court' common-law tact. I relish going to the Courthouse or County-Recorder to file the proper documents. I am also considering a deny, deny, deny, 'no contest' response; which, perhaps can be a 'last resort' to what you have proposed here or in conjunction with said tact.

    I will read the cited cases (I just mentioned RICKMAN to a suitor yesterday) and get back in a day or two with hopefully some good answers to your questions. If I can't find examples/procedures on that common-law 'prosecution' option perhaps you or someone can point me in the right direction. This battle I'm in is really a battle for everyone who is redeeming lawful money - and for reclaiming our rights.

    Grateful for your involvement and for sharing your knowledge.
    imm

  6. #6
    Well stated Michael!

    Frivolous Filing notices are just that, a NOTICE and we all know what to do with a notice, "Refused For Cause".

    Since certain clerical workers are not familiar with Refused For Cause it may be best to fashion one's own Notice and adding a bit more verbiage.

    "NOTICE - Your notice regarding a frivilous filing penalty is refused for cause without dishonor. No liabiity is assumed and no consent nor acceptance of said notice is given."


    Here is an informative read on the commercial aspects but when Section 3 is mentioned that is pertaining to negotiable instruments-
    http://freedom-school.com/5-ways-to-handle-a-presentment.pdf
    Last edited by EZrhythm; 04-22-15 at 04:08 AM.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,507
    Quote Originally Posted by itsmymoney View Post
    Michael,

    Quite the challenge you have posed! I accept. I am particularly interested in the 'prosecute my court' common-law tact. I relish going to the Courthouse or County-Recorder to file the proper documents. I am also considering a deny, deny, deny, 'no contest' response; which, perhaps can be a 'last resort' to what you have proposed here or in conjunction with said tact.

    Grateful for your involvement and for sharing your knowledge.
    imm
    You are welcome. If you will realize it then you will see that the agency is prosecuting from common law. It is a battle field of words and like Carl JUNG said when men have been reduced to statistical units then it matters not where in the ladder of statehood men or women act they are bound by their own fictions. So then we are talking about an account.

    The promised land is everywhere - the chief shepherd has defaulted and therefore a resulting trust exists for those who understand and have honor enough to pick it up and go in and TAKE DOMINION. Nevertheless the international corporation exists today in Statehood - but who will understand the State? Will it be insurance? Perhaps the bottom of the keel needs insurance - Bottomry. But who will understand the accounts that understand the insurance accounts? Where is the value that understands the value? Whereof is origins? Think and you will find it.

    You can feel free to jump in on the circle anytime you want. When you begin to see you rise above it all and it cannot bind you anymore. For how much insurance is enough? Accidentally kill someone and you will see you can never have enough. Therefore the ship of state has leaks.

    Noah go build your ark and find rest. Those looking for some boat are lost - they "miss the boat" literally and figuratively.

    I sit on a Board of Trustees managing the operations of a local farm. We created "veggie bucks" in order to trade within our private law boundary - but said bucks are bearer bonds - redeemable in real substance upon demand and exchange - those bucks might even one day be able to buy equity in the avails produced by the farm. Moo.

    Nevertheless if you have a valid claim will you prosecute upon your claim or will you allow some numbskull clerk to print some "form letter" and remove you from your birth right? You decide.

    For what can one man do? One man can change the world. One man can build a castle IF he gets up every day and goes to work! My word assures my ship of state!

    Understand capacity. In one capacity you pledge your faith and credit. In another capacity you are reduced to a mere business man within the confines of corporate boundary. Who made Who? The constituted State is a wonderful fiction as long as the individual is free to express his/her gifts. When the "mean" becomes the norm then the "mass" is nothing but a scientific statical average. A blur of humanity serving a COMPUTER.



    With best regards,
    MJ
    Last edited by Michael Joseph; 04-22-15 at 05:53 PM.
    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!

  8. #8
    Interesting MJ. Veggie Bucks | Urban Oaks Organic Farm?
    "And if I could I surely would Stand on the rock that Moses stood"

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    in an intended free America
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Joseph View Post
    You are welcome.

    I am familiar with the tact. I have never used it but can see it has value for one who understand what he is doing. Also see US v Rifen. Read Beard carefully. Remember at common law I can prosecute from my court - with two "good faith" notices and silence I have my judgement - I only need enforcement. Read between the lines and you will see without me telling you.

    Clarification on statement: I know you did not file a zero return...that does not matter one bit to the argument of friv filing. Myself I just called a couple of times got a very nice lady on the phone and talked her thru the agencies mistake. I have posted extensively in these forums concerning the fact that the front line people are mostly ignorant. Treat them nicely and they will return the favor. Remember the call is being recorded - that is a good thing. Especially if a MISTAKE has occurred.

    As for my part, I did not wait, I called immediately. Of course I could not accept their notice so I wrote them a letter thanking them for their good faith notice but kindly refusing on the cause of the incorrect presumption of obligation.

    The trustee is ALWAYS presumed guilty and must prove his/her innocence. The creator of the use [CQU] is making a demand for return of ledger upon a "presumed trustee".

    Again, I don't follow the tact used in this return - i can see its merits but I can't understand it and therefore I don't use what I don't comprehend and can't understand. I keep it very simple. I look forward to the day when i can have a face to face sit down with one of their agents - I was attempting to gain such an audience but alas they wanted to just talk to me on the phone.

    1. If you read Beard what was faulty concerning the argument?
    2. In US v. Rifen what is faulty concerning that argument?

    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 that “the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, § 8, United States Constitution.”

    3. Can you point out the flaw in RICKMAN's argument?


    Regards,
    MJ

    MJ,

    I would like to respond in part here, specifically for number 2. ...

    2. In US v. Rifen what is faulty concerning that argument?

    The argument...

    Rifen testified as to his belief that federal reserve notes are not authorized by the United States Constitution because they are not redeemable in specie, and are therefore not subject to taxation
    The law as disclosed by the judge himself...

    No such evidence was necessary. Congress has declared federal reserve notes legal tender, 31 U.S.C. § 392, and federal reserve notes are taxable dollars.
    So 'federal reserve notes' THEMSELVES are 'taxable dollars'. Did the judge really say that, on the record?!!!!!! In other words, Rifen's "wages" (i.e. pay, though "statutory" in that respect) were in the form of FRN's therefore 'taxable dollars'.

    Basically the judge is saying that the tax was/is SOLELY on the use of FRN's..."federal reserve notes are taxable dollars."

    Rifen's argument is faulty because he was arguing 'form of payment', not 'redemption of payment'. He did not have the option of specie (gold, silver), but he DID have the option to redeem in lawful money in the form of U.S. Notes - but he mentioned nothing in that respect.

    That's how I'm seeing it. Would like your comments, MJ. Thanks.
    Last edited by itsmymoney; 04-24-15 at 11:25 PM.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,507
    Quote Originally Posted by itsmymoney View Post
    MJ,

    I would like to respond in part here, specifically for number 2. ...

    2. In US v. Rifen what is faulty concerning that argument?

    The argument...



    The law as disclosed by the judge himself...



    So 'federal reserve notes' THEMSELVES are 'taxable dollars'. Did the judge really say that, on the record?!!!!!! In other words, Rifen's "wages" (i.e. pay, though "statutory" in that respect) were in the form of FRN's therefore 'taxable dollars'.

    Basically the judge is saying that the tax was/is SOLELY on the use of FRN's..."federal reserve notes are taxable dollars."

    Rifen's argument is faulty because he was arguing 'form of payment', not 'redemption of payment'. He did not have the option of specie (gold, silver), but he DID have the option to redeem in lawful money in the form of U.S. Notes - but he mentioned nothing in that respect.

    That's how I'm seeing it. Would like your comments, MJ. Thanks.
    Forget about substance. Money is what you trade with as a medium of exchange. Now quit on money and think TRUST. You must comprehend trusts. Who is underwriting the Money. Meaning the use of FRN's reflects a bond deposited with the Federal Reserve. So it is the United States bond which is underwriting the FRN. So in a sense the FRN is a promise to perform backed by US Bonds. And US Bonds are understood in substance internationally and in pledges domestically. Nevertheless there is equity understanding the notes in circulation.

    The use of the notes is a benefit subject to an obligation. This is why I have endeavored so much to explore Uses, Trust, CQU and CQT.

    Now when you get your mind around that then OF COURSE FRN's are taxable - or said another way - subject to the use fee. To argue against that is to deny the existence of the trust and the benefit of law.

    Now the FRN is a dual capacity note. The greater always redeems the lesser. Therefore I don't care what you give me as long as it is legal tender. I fulfill the law when I make my demand for lawful money. Now is the law no more once I make my demand or does it still stand upon a future choice? Can it be said that I am forever without the IRS revenue agents just because I demand lawful money today? Perhaps I will do a deal tomorrow based on fractional reserve lending practices. Therefore there is always a presumption.

    And since computers are the front line gate keepers these days, it may be a while before a living soul is reached.

    The use bears the title TAXPAYER.

    Regards,
    MJ
    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!

Posting Permissions

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