Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

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

  1. #11
    Member Robert Henry's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Where ever I may roam...
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by walter View Post
    That's great to hear.

    27 years for me.
    And what method, or combination of methods, have fueled your success, if I may ask?

    I've only been redeeming for the last month or so, myself, and find it thrilling. I find it odd that none of the BofA tellers have even noticed my non-endorsement. In fact, it makes me nervous every time I cash a check, just waiting to get that stink-eye! I scanned my signature and included with it the RILM verbiage, using MS Word, and just print that on the back of my checks, in lieu of a stamp.

    I'm planning to start working on my libel of review very soon but am a bit overwhelmed with that one so I'm sure I will be posting here begging for help! I really can't wait to see the results of my filing with redeemed deduction included!

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Henry View Post
    And what method, or combination of methods, have fueled your success, if I may ask?
    The easiest one of them all. I hid.

    When I finished college I had a student loan and had no job.
    So I moved to a party ski hill town and had fun.

    I only filed tax's when in school for two years, because of the loan you had to, and I never filed an income.

    When I had a job in party town for 5 years I received the T4 slips from the employer just like everyone else.
    The only difference I did was I did not file.

    The CRA owned me monies from the employer taking tax's off the pay cheque, but I did not want the loans department to find me.
    So I said to myself that the CRA can keep those few bucks because the headache of dealing with the student loans department at the time was not worth it for me in life.

    That is what slowly drove me underground. I started to live life with out them being involved.
    Made working decisions based on staying out of their eyes.
    And started to work for myself.

    The student loan vanished with out paying one cent, and the CRA has no claim on me.
    I just never filed an income. Ever.

    I did a subdivision with a couple co-owners.
    Government rezoning, dealing with many government departments etc.

    The co-owners gave their info to the tax man and I didn't.
    They are having problems with the taxman extorting monies and I get left alone.

    I told them not to do it that way but they did it anyway.
    Now they are paying the price.

    I had a money broker once do a NAME search on my NAME because he said everyone was in the system.
    Well guess what he found out?
    I am not in the system.
    It was the first time he found nothing on a NAME.

    What we do as kids when we first start to work for a pay cheque in life starts the ball rolling for the taxman.
    We want to be grown adults so bad that we jump right into the rat-race with out ever thinking twice about what we are doing.


    So it comes down to how can they hold you to a number when you never used the number?

  3. #13
    Member Robert Henry's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Where ever I may roam...
    Posts
    40
    Walter, that is an amazing story. Thank you for sharing. Would that all of us could have seen so clearly at such a young age.

  4. #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
    Fish, this is hogwash! Those of us who have studied the use of the terms "includes/including" can see through the obfuscation attempt of the IRS. According to the definition section, from earlier revenue acts, and Blacks law dictionary, YES "includes" is a term of expansion as they submit, but the expansion only occurs within the items of the same class as those enumerated.

    Eg. "For the purposes of this chapter the term "automobile" includes cars, trucks, motorcycles" Even though NOT enumerated the term can reasonably be expanded to include scooters, but would you honestly say it could reasonably include "kites"? Of course not, because "kites" are NO WAY in the same class as the aforementioned.

  5. #15
    So what exactly does a RLM tax return look like? (for those who file them). How is it made clear that the funds in question are indeed "Lawful Money"?

  6. #16

    Includes/Including Document

    I thought I would share an expansive pdf file on the use of "Includes/Including". Take a look, it's been very helpful for me.

    Darkmagus
    Attached Images Attached Images

  7. #17
    Member Robert Henry's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Where ever I may roam...
    Posts
    40
    Darkmagus,

    I will bite, even though I can't speak from direct experience of this, yet (eagerly awaiting tax season to file my first such return after redeeming half of this years paychecks!).

    The surest proof of redemption, as I understand it, is the copies of the front and back of your non-endorsed checks that you will include with your return.

    This, to me, is elegant simplicity.

    There are a couple of examples of proper, though sanitized, returns with redemption schedules floating around this site, if you look around a bit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darkmagus View Post
    So what exactly does a RLM tax return look like? (for those who file them). How is it made clear that the funds in question are indeed "Lawful Money"?
    Last edited by Robert Henry; 08-02-13 at 07:24 PM.

  8. #18
    American rule of law, read the brief here, the government's response here and the reply to that response here.

  9. #19
    JohnnyCash
    Guest
    I have just entered my 8th year as a successful NONTAXPAYER! No wage garnishments, no liens, no levies, no penalties, no CP letters.
    http://ctcwarrior.com/SSA_2015_3.jpg

    I come before you tonight humbled by this win. It would not have been possible without the work of other freedom-fighters who came before me and published their work. Thank you David, Pete, Rick and all [including the quatlosers offering a token of their affliction] who've helped me achieve such an unprecedented victory.
    Thank you very much. God bless, and go Patriots!

    PS. I did not rebut the 1099-MISC amounts I received for 2012 or 2013. I simply did not include those amounts on a Form 1040 since it was redeemed lawful money and there was no obligation.
    http://jesse2012.com/my109912.jpg
    http://jesse2012.com/my109913.jpg
    Last edited by JohnnyCash; 01-02-15 at 03:56 PM.

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyCash View Post
    I have just entered my 8th year as a successful NONTAXPAYER! No wage garnishments, no liens, no levies, no penalties, no CP letters.
    http://ctcwarrior.com/SSA_2015_3.jpg

    I come before you tonight humbled by this win. It would not have been possible without the work of other freedom-fighters who came before me and published their work. Thank you David, Pete, Rick and all [including the quatlosers offering a token of their affliction] who've helped me achieve such an unprecedented victory.
    Thank you very much. God bless, and go Patriots!

    PS. I did not rebut the 1099-MISC amounts I received for 2012 or 2013. I simply did not include those amounts on a Form 1040 since it was redeemed lawful money and there was no obligation.
    http://jesse2012.com/my109912.jpg
    http://jesse2012.com/my109913.jpg
    Congrats!

    One thing stands out though...

    It appears that your Social Security & Medicare benefits will be greatly reduced by your "0" earnings. That makes sense if you not are wanting SSA & Medicare Benefits.

    My SSA report for my past 3 successful lawful money demand tax years shows my full amount of earnings (in FRNs) credited for SSA, so it will yearly increase my SSA benefits for Retirement & Medicare, which I am paying withholding for and plan to use at age 66, and will also continue to redeem its FRNs transacted thereby. (Contact me privately about how I use TaxAct for this.)

    So we are doing our 1040's very differently, and yet it appears that your previously-made point that the IRS won't touch any 1040 that has a lawful money demand reduction on it is certainly true! That's great! They don't want any "press" on it in the courts or news.

    Like in the movie "National Treasure"... when the father warned about "keeping the status quo" in order to preserve their lives with their captors. This complies with Mt 13:30 - "let both grow together..." which appears to be the rule the system is honoring... because they know what happens if they don't.
    Last edited by doug555; 01-02-15 at 09:53 PM.

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
  •