Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: No Income Tax paid - 3 years and counting.

  1. #1
    JohnnyCash
    Guest

    No Income Tax paid - 3 years and counting.

    I've been asked to share more details of my success. I'll lay out the facts and leave the reader to their own spin or interpretation. I should preface by stating that in 2008 I was just an average "sheeple" - asleep to much of what's discussed on this website. But I did start to wake up when our leaders nearly fell over themselves to hand $800 billion over to Wall Street. I started digging into our monetary system, money & banking*, learned that when I signed for a mortgage, the bank didn't lend me other depositors money, nor money sitting in the bank, but that my signature on the note created new currency for the bank to lend me(!). This led me to the subject of taxation and Pete HENDRICKSON's Cracking the Code.

    I have worked for myself many years now usually receiving a Form 1099 at year-end from clients and I would pay estimated taxes. After Pete's book showed the tax code to be largely smoke & mirrors, that my consent was needed, and that the 1099 creates a presumption of income under the Revenue Acts, etc. I managed to get the flow of 1099s to nearly stop, after all I'm not a statutory trade or business. For 2008 I filed a fed tax return showing the true amount of income (less than a thousand, but of course made plenty of lawful money) and received full refunds, federal & state. (check sanitized/altered to erase identity). The 1099s I received thereafter were below the statutory exemption amount for income, thus no estimated payments, no withholding, & no need to file, and I have not filed returns thereafter. I also learned about lawful money from David Merrill and began restrictively endorsing checks pursuant to 12 USC 411 (I didn't fully believe at first but since it cost nothing, what the hell). I did not amend prior years, file 1040x, nor Form 4852. I have no legal issues and have not heard a peep from the IRS.

    You are now free to spin those facts.
    _______________
    * The Creature from Jekyll Island

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyCash View Post
    I have worked for myself many years now usually receiving a Form 1099 at year-end from clients and I would pay estimated taxes. After Pete's book showed the tax code to be largely smoke & mirrors, that my consent was needed, and that the 1099 creates a presumption of income under the Revenue Acts, etc. I managed to get the flow of 1099s to nearly stop, after all I'm not a statutory trade or business. [/URL]
    Can you expound on what you did to make the 1099's stop?

  3. #3
    JohnnyCash
    Guest
    Sure. Let's just say I have a certain skill set and ... I was convinced the Form 1099 was not appropriate, should not be filed in connection with payments between the client & I for that skill set. Form 1099 is to be used for trade or business reporting only. Trade or Business has a narrow definition in the tax code: The term "trade or business" includes the performance of the functions of a public office. Nothing else is listed or included. I do not perform the functions of a public office. For background see Pete's chapter Crafting a Trade or Business: A Guide For The Self-Employed starting at page 82. I would expand Pete's definition of federal to include Federal Reserve credit (in contradistinction to lawful money - US Notes in the form of FRNs). I think we all agree the Tax is an excise on Federal activity/stuff and if I'm not endorsing private credit (of the Fed Reserve) then where is the federal connection or nexus? There isn't any; I'm exercising my natural right to labor & trade without excise. So it was just a matter of convincing the client, no 1099. File the 1099 and the deal's off, you don't get the skill set. Breach of contract.

    But even if the client issues a 1099 (to the IRS & you) I think you could stand your ground and prevail - although it might involve a contest. Ultimately the 1099 is third-party hearsay. You have a right to be heard, your consent is required. You, as the recipient of clients money, have superior facts & knowledge as to the exact nature of the payments. Why should the authorities place greater weight on the client's determination? Especially when you can provide evidence of redeemed Federal Reserve credit (lawful money). In fact, the Portillo case supports this:
    “[T]he Commissioner's determination that Portillo had received unreported income of $24,505 from Navarro was arbitrary. The Commissioner's determination was based solely on a Form 1099 Navarro sent to the I.R.S. indicating that he paid Portillo $24,505 more than Portillo had reported on his return. The Commissioner merely matched Navarro's Form 1099 with Portillo's Form 1040 and arbitrarily decided to attribute veracity to Navarro and assume that Portillo's Form 1040 was false.”

    "Therefore, the judgment below regarding unreported income must be reversed."
    Portillo v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Fifth Circuit, 932 F.2d 1128 (1991)
    http://www.losthorizons.com/newsarchive.htm
    Last edited by JohnnyCash; 07-13-11 at 05:42 PM. Reason: add

  4. #4
    Junior Member fishnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    on the Gulf Coast
    Posts
    21
    JohnnyCash,

    Be careful with how you interpret tax code and be aware of how the courts interpret. Idaho State Tax Commision published this decision. Idaho Code relies on Internal Revenue Code.

    "The taxpayer argued the amounts reported on the Forms 1099-MISC were incorrectly
    shown as nonemployee compensation because this alleges he was in a trade or business, and a
    trade or business is defined by IRC section 7701(a)(26) as the performance of the functions of a
    public office. The taxpayer stated neither he nor the payers identified on the Forms 1099 were
    involved in the performance of the functions of a public office.

    In his interpretation of IRC section 7701(a)(26), the taxpayer misses a key component of
    that section’s definition of the term “trade or business.” Subpart (26) states, “The term ‘trade or
    business’ includes the performance of the functions of a public office.” This subpart does not
    state that a trade or business is exclusively the performance of the functions of a public office. It
    states it includes the performance of the functions of a public office. In fact, IRC section 7701(c)
    defines the terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in the IRC. It
    states that the terms includes and including shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise
    within the meaning of the term defined. Therefore, the term trade or business also includes those
    things generally attributable to the words trade and business.

    Regardless of whether the taxpayer believes the services provided to the payers listed on
    the Forms 1099-MISC constitutes or comes up to the level of a trade or business, the taxpayer
    received compensation or remuneration for his services. According to IRC section 61, that
    DECISION - 4
    [Redacted] compensation is part of the taxpayer’s gross income."

    http://tax.idaho.gov/decisions/0720157.pdf

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Within the confines of my own skin.
    Posts
    752
    31 USC 3124 - Sec. 3124. Exemption from taxation

    (a) Stocks and obligations of the United States Government are exempt from taxation by a State or political subdivision of a State.

    The exemption applies to each form of taxation that would require the obligation, the interest on the obligation, or both, to be considered in computing a tax, except - (1) a nondiscriminatory franchise tax or another nonproperty tax instead of a franchise tax, imposed on a corporation; and (2) an estate or inheritance tax. (b) The tax status of interest on obligations and dividends, earnings, or other income from evidences of ownership issued by the Government or an agency and the tax treatment of gain and loss from the disposition of those obligations and evidences of ownership is decided under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). An obligation that the Federal Housing Administration had agreed, under a contract made before March 1, 1941, to issue at a future date, has the tax exemption privileges provided by the authorizing law at the time of the contract.

    This subsection does not apply to obligations and evidences of ownership issued by the District of Columbia, a territory or possession of the United States, or a department, agency, instrumentality, or political subdivision of the District, territory, or possession.
    ************************************************** ********************************************

    26 CFR 1.83-3 - Meaning and use of certain terms.

    Code of Federal Regulations - Title 26: Internal Revenue

    (4)(g)
    Amount paid. For purposes of section 83 and the regulations thereunder, the term amount paid refers to the value of any money or property paid for the transfer of property to which section 83 applies, and does not refer to any amount paid for the right to use such property or to receive the income therefrom. Such value does not include any stated or unstated interest payments. For rules regarding the calculation of the amount of unstated interest payments, see 1.4831(c).

    When section 83 applies to the transfer of property pursuant to the exercise of an option, the term amount paid refers to any amount paid for the grant of the option plus any amount paid as the exercise price of the option. For rules regarding the forgiveness of indebtedness treated as an amount paid, see 1.834(c).
    ************************************************** ***************************************

    The first statute shows the exemption for obligations of the United States, i.e. Lawful Money
    The second statute is pretty much a checkmate because even that last statute mentioning the other sections, they relate to performance for services rendered which is also exempt.
    Income is corporate profits, plain and simple because the value offered and amount paid are the same. Even bonus checks and such if marked with the demand for lawful money are exempt from taxation, because that shows you have no interest in profiting from the interest at banks.
    This is also why it is best to try and find a bank account that is non-interest baring therefor no reporting to IRS need be done.
    Claim ownership of nothing, exercise control of everything for the benefit of thy neighbor.
    Last edited by motla68; 10-30-11 at 11:10 PM.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Treefarmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    in the woods known to some as Tanasi
    Posts
    476
    Blog Entries
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by fishnet View Post
    JohnnyCash,

    Be careful with how you interpret tax code and be aware of how the courts interpret. Idaho State Tax Commision published this decision. Idaho Code relies on Internal Revenue Code.

    "The taxpayer argued the amounts reported on the Forms 1099-MISC were incorrectly
    shown as nonemployee compensation because this alleges he was in a trade or business, and a
    trade or business is defined by IRC section 7701(a)(26) as the performance of the functions of a
    public office. The taxpayer stated neither he nor the payers identified on the Forms 1099 were
    involved in the performance of the functions of a public office.

    In his interpretation of IRC section 7701(a)(26), the taxpayer misses a key component of
    that section’s definition of the term “trade or business.” Subpart (26) states, “The term ‘trade or
    business’ includes the performance of the functions of a public office.” This subpart does not
    state that a trade or business is exclusively the performance of the functions of a public office. It
    states it includes the performance of the functions of a public office. In fact, IRC section 7701(c)
    defines the terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in the IRC. It
    states that the terms includes and including shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise
    within the meaning of the term defined. Therefore, the term trade or business also includes those
    things generally attributable to the words trade and business.

    Regardless of whether the taxpayer believes the services provided to the payers listed on
    the Forms 1099-MISC constitutes or comes up to the level of a trade or business, the taxpayer
    received compensation or remuneration for his services. According to IRC section 61, that
    DECISION - 4
    [Redacted] compensation is part of the taxpayer’s gross income."

    http://tax.idaho.gov/decisions/0720157.pdf
    The IRC is a trap IMHO, designed to distract attention away from the real object of the income tax, which is the endorsement of Federal Reserve credit. The IRC twists statutory construction to the utmost in order to look like something that it is not.
    Normally the term (not word) "includes" has a limiting function in statutory construction.
    I've lost some bookmarks to lightening so I can't conveniently pull up an example right now, but if you look at statutes from sections other than 26USC you will find that the term "includes" excludes all other items which are not listed in the text of the statute.
    In order to be able to have it both ways, i.e. for the code to look good and "constitutional" to the masses, but to be interpreted according to the secret hidden contract of the Fed banks, the code provides the courts with the preposterous definition of the term "includes" and "including".

    It took them roughly 1.5 million words to obscure the truth and the remedy, and they have been extremely successful at beguiling the people with it.

    I had an interesting article on the terms include, including, includes, etc saved up and will try to find it on my old computer.
    Treefarmer

    There is power in the blood of Jesus

  7. #7
    Senior Member Treefarmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    in the woods known to some as Tanasi
    Posts
    476
    Blog Entries
    14
    Can't find that article anymore, so I will link to the Informer because he explains it so much better than I.
    Treefarmer

    There is power in the blood of Jesus

  8. #8
    Senior Member Treefarmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    in the woods known to some as Tanasi
    Posts
    476
    Blog Entries
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by fishnet View Post
    JohnnyCash,

    Be careful with how you interpret tax code and be aware of how the courts interpret....
    ...........
    states that the terms includes and including shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise
    within the meaning of the term defined. Therefore, the term trade or business also includes those
    things generally attributable to the words trade and business.
    Found what I was looking for after all.
    I believe that this little treatise on key terms used in the IRC supports my assertion that the IRC was written especially to obfuscate remedy and to hide the truth about Federal Reserve Credit as opposed to Lawful Money from the people.
    Treefarmer

    There is power in the blood of Jesus

  9. #9
    JohnnyCash
    Guest
    It's been two years since I wrote the opening post, and I'm still enjoying success against the banksters' IRS. While I continue to make plenty of lawful money, I haven't made much federal income and haven't been filing 1040 returns (no requirement). Not much evidence of that non-filing to show except this sanitized Social Security Earnings Report. So it's now No Income Tax paid - 5 years and counting. I'd like to thank David Merrill and all you suitors. I could not have achieved this success without you!

    I did receive a substantial Form 1099 for 2012; that reported amount was all redeemed lawful money, not federal income at all, so that might make things more interesting going forward.

    Of course the Q's chief disinformationalist, JesseJames, is fit to be tied about this & continues to denounce my success wherever he can, but mostly at FreedomWatch.

  10. #10
    That's great to hear.

    27 years for me.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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