Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: Who filed this year, and how?

  1. #21
    I tried something different this year. I used the John H. Doe approach but made modifications. The "pay" they claim I received is through 1099's. I claimed all on the 1040. I also liquidated an IRA account, which I also claimed. But I then negated all on line 21 as in the example of John H. Doe. I attached a schedule for line 21 where I incorporated each 1099 into the filing and included a copy of EVERY check with non-endorsement. On the schedule I listed the "gross pay" from the 1099, then my Demand for Lawful Money Reduction (i.e. the total of the checks non-endorsed), and showed a total line showing zero as "taxable income." I did this for all 5 1099's. I also incorporated a copy of Title 12 and I also incorporated an Affidavit of Truth signed True Name with Notary signature. Also, since one of my "employers" went to direct deposit, I registered my demand at the Register of Deeds at the end of 2010 and included a certified copy of that demand for that pay in the filing as well. My viewpoint is this - since I had no income (i.e. due to lawful money) I owe them no filing. But if I don't file I can't offset their presumption that I am endorsing private credit. So I file. Only to be (most likely) met with future frivolous filings.

    At this time I have no belief any of it will matter and I expect frivolous notices to arrive. But here's hoping. I received a Refund Due notice from them for 2010 only to be currently met with Frivoulous Filing bills (2 now) for the same calendar year and an agent in Utah who sent me a "proposed tax due" calculation (which was R4C and used to establish my LOR). I feel like I am in a quandry. I have their own Notice CP12 that they owe me money, but it doesn't seem to matter because they continue to claim I owe them money (after the date of their Notice CP12). As I mentioned tonight to another suitor, I believe the challenge is they will fight me tooth and nail because if they ever have to pay me the "money" they themselves previously said they owe me then they are exposed. Who knows. After the past few months and being currently involved in my LOR filing I have to say not much will surprise me going forward.

  2. #22
    Senior Member Treefarmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    in the woods known to some as Tanasi
    Posts
    476
    Quote Originally Posted by jeffreydavid View Post
    I tried something different this year. I used the John H. Doe approach but made modifications. The "pay" they claim I received is through 1099's. I claimed all on the 1040. I also liquidated an IRA account, which I also claimed. But I then negated all on line 21 as in the example of John H. Doe. I attached a schedule for line 21 where I incorporated each 1099 into the filing and included a copy of EVERY check with non-endorsement. On the schedule I listed the "gross pay" from the 1099, then my Demand for Lawful Money Reduction (i.e. the total of the checks non-endorsed), and showed a total line showing zero as "taxable income." I did this for all 5 1099's. I also incorporated a copy of Title 12 and I also incorporated an Affidavit of Truth signed True Name with Notary signature. Also, since one of my "employers" went to direct deposit, I registered my demand at the Register of Deeds at the end of 2010 and included a certified copy of that demand for that pay in the filing as well. My viewpoint is this - since I had no income (i.e. due to lawful money) I owe them no filing. But if I don't file I can't offset their presumption that I am endorsing private credit. So I file. Only to be (most likely) met with future frivolous filings.

    At this time I have no belief any of it will matter and I expect frivolous notices to arrive. But here's hoping. I received a Refund Due notice from them for 2010 only to be currently met with Frivoulous Filing bills (2 now) for the same calendar year and an agent in Utah who sent me a "proposed tax due" calculation (which was R4C and used to establish my LOR). I feel like I am in a quandry. I have their own Notice CP12 that they owe me money, but it doesn't seem to matter because they continue to claim I owe them money (after the date of their Notice CP12). As I mentioned tonight to another suitor, I believe the challenge is they will fight me tooth and nail because if they ever have to pay me the "money" they themselves previously said they owe me then they are exposed. Who knows. After the past few months and being currently involved in my LOR filing I have to say not much will surprise me going forward.
    It seems to me the IRS tries to collect revenue under every possible pretext, without being encumbered by any laws, rules or regulations, such as the "Constitution" (whatever that mythical creature may be), or the IRC, or statutes, or anything else I've seen.

    If their job is to implement "public policy" by hitting everyone up for more and more debt instruments, aka "money", then I suppose they can change their so-called rules as they go along, and make up new ones daily at their whim.

    I have noticed that once information returns have been generated, such as W-2 and/or 1099, the IRS expects to get a cut, unless the $ amount is under a specified threshold amount which changes yearly and seems to trail inflation somewhat.
    Treefarmer

    There is power in the blood of Jesus

  3. #23
    That sounds about right. Thanks for many of your previous posts. I have read a few this evening and appreciate your sharing. Today I received a Final Notice of Intent to Levy... and I was not planning on using Registered Mail to send it back through my LOR but after reading one of your comments I think at this point in the game I am more interested in paying the money to send it than leave it to chance. Thanks again.

  4. #24
    Treefarmer;


    One technique at play is that the presentments keep coming from different campuses of the IRS. That is why we open the evidence repository with a LoR against Timothy Franz GEITHNER - the Secretary of the Treasury acting as the US Governor of the IMF.

    A suitor with a Libel of Review would Refuse for cause the Final Notice for Levy with the original R4C going to GEITHNER on the LoR in action. Send a copy of both the Clerk Instruction and the R4C to the campus that has mailed you the Presentment. The original clerk instruction with a copy of the R4C goes to the USDC into your LoR. Keep a copy for your records...

    You can keep a record of what is in the "exclusive original cognizance" of the US government. That is probably what it will take to dissuade the IRS agent from calling your boss or bank.

  5. #25
    Senior Member Treefarmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    in the woods known to some as Tanasi
    Posts
    476
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    Treefarmer;


    One technique at play is that the presentments keep coming from different campuses of the IRS. That is why we open the evidence repository with a LoR against Timothy Franz GEITHNER - the Secretary of the Treasury acting as the US Governor of the IMF.

    A suitor with a Libel of Review would Refuse for cause the Final Notice for Levy with the original R4C going to GEITHNER on the LoR in action. Send a copy of both the Clerk Instruction and the R4C to the campus that has mailed you the Presentment. The original clerk instruction with a copy of the R4C goes to the USDC into your LoR. Keep a copy for your records...

    You can keep a record of what is in the "exclusive original cognizance" of the US government. That is probably what it will take to dissuade the IRS agent from calling your boss or bank.
    Yes, that technique has worked well for us.

    It sometimes also works to send presentments back to sender without opening them, or accepting them, in the case of certified IRS mail which requires a signature.

    Last summer while I was on my road trip out west, DH was tending the treefarm. I had instructed him not to contract with any alphabet agencies, and he didn't.
    He refused to sign for the certified letter presentments which happened to show up while I was out of town. We'll never know what was in them, because after three unsuccessful tries the IRS stopped sending them.

    Of course we already had our LoR in place by then, going into a default judgment.
    Treefarmer

    There is power in the blood of Jesus

  6. #26

Posting Permissions

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