Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26

Thread: Who filed this year, and how?

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Sabo View Post
    So your opinion is that I have no leg to stand on from any other angle as far as general liability with 'pre-Lawful Money' ...?

    Once you establish record-forming through a federal evidence repository you can R4C and even accuse the IRS/Treasury of fraud by omission. Fraud vitiates all contracts so you never have actually had a tax liability. These things take time and some very interesting causes are in the pipeline now. So far though, no suitors with full evidence repositories are being fleeced, even the Pete Victims...

    Knock on wood!

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    Once you establish record-forming through a federal evidence repository you can R4C
    Please direct me to where I can learn how to 1) establish record-forming through a federal evidence repository, and 2) perform R4C.

    A little about my personal situation:

    I am being asked by the IRS to file a return for 2010, for which I initially filed for an extension, and then nothing else. They have given me a deadline of April 22, though I am told by a phone agent that I may be able to get that extended.

    An IRS wage and income transcript for 2010 shows 3 W-2s, 2 1099-DIVs, 1 1099-MISC, and 1 1098-E student loan statement.

    If pressed like I'm now being, I had previously planned to file CtC-educated (Form 4852 rebuttal of W-2s and "corrected" 1099s). Now, however, I am questioning taking that path based on Pete's incarceration, and what others have said about Form 4852 raising big red flags / inviting frivolous penalties (now or later), and so forth.

    Unfortunately, I only started redeeming checks for lawful money this year.


    Brain trust words of experience, guidance, and wisdom much appreciated. Thank you.


  3. #13
    Senior Member Treefarmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    in the woods known to some as Tanasi
    Posts
    476
    Quote Originally Posted by Sabo View Post
    You've been saying that a lot lately. Unfortunately, there's no strong evidence from any credible source that suggests that.

    Inaction is probably not the best thing to do, so I'm asking what people are doing (as far as filing is concerned). That way, if nothing like what you've been suggesting happens (which is where I'm hedging my bets, to be perfectly honest with you), I don't continue to be in the bad situation that I'm already in.

    ..anyway, more constructive feedback from others would be greatly appreciated. shikamaru? Treefarmer? freedave? (I don't remember which ones have been able to avoid the gaze of the IRS' All-Seeing Eye..)
    IMHO, inaction is definitely not the way to go, as it will only delay the fight and may make it nastier when it does arrive.

    DH and I have been fighting it out with the IRS for about two years now, and we have learned that the IRS plays totally unpredictable and irrational for the most part, but they can make sense if they want to. That's a big IF though.

    IF they have any kind of a policy, they are not letting on.

    We filed HENDRICKSON style for 5 years, but they only took offense at three of those years. One of them was 2009, the year after the big housing crash (we were in the construction business) and we only had one W-2 form that year and it was for under $4,000.00. We file married, jointly, and if we had filed conventionally for '09 we would have gotten all FICA and Medicare withholdings back, plus EIC. But to be consistent with previous years and because we didn't know any better, we filed HENDRICKSON style.
    The IRS sent us a refund check and then informed us that we took a "frivolous" stance and if we didn't submit a non-frivolous return they would fine us 2 times $5,000.00.

    I refused 4 cause and then submitted 2 more versions of form 1040 EZ for '09, one in zero income style claiming lawful money, and one conventional filing claiming EIC. I wrote a cover letter asking them to choose whichever version they liked better.
    That was about 9 months ago and we've not heard back from them about this yet.

    We built our LoR around years '07 and '08. For those years we had initially hired a CPA to do our taxes, back when we had an LLC. The CPA had obviously screwed up, so I had taken matters into my own hands and filed 1040X forms HENDRICKSON style. First we got full refunds and about a year later $20,000.00 worth of "frivolous" penalties, at which point we R4C'd and filed the LoR.

    Then they sent us tax bills for those years, which mutated over the course of some correspondence and R4C and got smaller. At no point did the IRS's tax bills resemble the numbers which the CPA had figured, nor did they resemble any amount I could have figured out by any method that I'm aware of. The frivolous penalty appears to have got cut in half, according to some fairly recent bill which we R4C'd.

    I recently sent the IRS a NOTICE of REVOCATION, apologizing for my ignorant and "frivolous" filings and REVOKING them. I have not heard back about that either.

    I have filed a 1040EZ for 2011, where we only had one W-2 for under $4,000.00 again, as well as a full record of lawful money redemption. I wrote a cover letter informing the IRS of our demand for lawful money and I included a copy of a non-endorsed paycheck, front and back. I wrote "EIC" on line 8a and asked them to figure the EIC, if applicable.

    This week I got a letter from them informing me that they "corrected a mistake" on my 1040EZ, that is they calculated the EIC for me. It resulted in a refund for us, which they kept, as payment for the taxes which they figured we still owed for '07.
    Apparently they considered the amount from the W-2 to be taxable "income", lawful money demand not withstanding.


    We have learned this:

    1) The IRS only seems interested in "income", whatever that may be, if it is reported to them by a "PAYER" or "EMPLOYER" on some form of theirs, like W-2 or 1099.

    2) So far in their dealings with us they have avoided sending us any correspondence which could be construed as being their "official position" on the demand for lawful money redemption. They appear to obfuscate this matter intentionally.

    3) Dealing in Lawful Money in the form of cash (FRNs) is a good and honest way to do business.

    $) We still don't have a clue what "income" is.


    While this is all completely anecdotal, I hope that it will help some people here in their decision making process.

    Shalom
    Treefarmer

    There is power in the blood of Jesus

  4. #14
    Senior Member Brian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Earth, Alpha Quadrant.
    Posts
    142

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by InTheCrease View Post
    Please direct me to where I can learn how to 1) establish record-forming through a federal evidence repository, and 2) perform R4C.

    A little about my personal situation:

    I am being asked by the IRS to file a return for 2010, for which I initially filed for an extension, and then nothing else. They have given me a deadline of April 22, though I am told by a phone agent that I may be able to get that extended.

    An IRS wage and income transcript for 2010 shows 3 W-2s, 2 1099-DIVs, 1 1099-MISC, and 1 1098-E student loan statement.

    If pressed like I'm now being, I had previously planned to file CtC-educated (Form 4852 rebuttal of W-2s and "corrected" 1099s). Now, however, I am questioning taking that path based on Pete's incarceration, and what others have said about Form 4852 raising big red flags / inviting frivolous penalties (now or later), and so forth.

    Unfortunately, I only started redeeming checks for lawful money this year.


    Brain trust words of experience, guidance, and wisdom much appreciated. Thank you.

    If you have been endorsing private credit from the Fed then you are in that signature agreement to send them a return of your income for that privilege. You should redeem lawful money rather and get into that habit. I think you will start learning how to negotiate the returns because you are already part way there with Pete HENDRICKSON's material. He was never applying the remedy in the law though. He never promoted non-endorsement.

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian View Post
    That's interesting. Two thing about that:

    "Income" when applied to the affairs of individuals expresses the same idea that "revenue" does when applied to the affairs of a state or nation.
    What does Black's Law (assuming that's what the scan is from) say about "revenue"?

    Below it, 'income tax' is defined as tax on yearly "profits", which in 'Income' is defined as gain upon businesses and investments.

    Am I being too pedantic, or is this one of the reasons we're (meant as those who are non-sheep) fighting the way we are?

  7. #17
    Senior Member Brian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Earth, Alpha Quadrant.
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by Sabo View Post
    That's interesting. Two thing about that:

    What does Black's Law (assuming that's what the scan is from) say about "revenue"?

    Below it, 'income tax' is defined as tax on yearly "profits", which in 'Income' is defined as gain upon businesses and investments.

    Am I being too pedantic, or is this one of the reasons we're (meant as those who are non-sheep) fighting the way we are?
    Sabo, Here is the link for Black's Law 1st and 2nd editions

    http://blacks.worldfreemansociety.org/

    Revenue: http://blacks.worldfreemansociety.org/2/R/r1034.jpg

  8. #18
    Think of extending this to The Good Church, the Mandatory Exception (Section 508(c)(1)(A) - churches) of you in self-governance at home.

    "The legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted." (Gregory v. Helvering, (1934) 239 US 465,460.)
    It may be a lot safer to think of this all in terms of informal corporation sole. At least the author of the diagram wishes that you not use it without considering the risks carefully.



  9. #19
    David in the diagram you have presented the Good Church is incorporated with a charter grant. Then it states that it is an unusual incorporation, in that it is similar to Articles of Association. Is reason the articles of association are used because it is filed with a different government agency. Not with the Sec. of state. If this is not the case then why are the Art. of Association filed instead of the usual type of non-profit incorporation with the Sec. of State. FB

  10. #20
    I understand it being free of registration altogether. However if it is to be registered at all then it functions under the state registration procedures for a corporation sole. But I do not know a lot about corporation sole.

    I believe that Wesley SNIPES got in hot water with Eddie Ray KAHN for trying to set up corporation sole.

Posting Permissions

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