Substance of the R4C

[David Merrill]

Well, auntie was their typical non-responsive selves per my IMF correction demands. The VAL-1 one is a major error and everyone has it in their file....it says that the TIN is incorrect for the account, so the account should be frozen until an investigation is done. Auntie is not supposed input anything into that account until the matter is cleared, BUT they do! ( the 6209 manual and the IRM have all the controlling factors written out. There is no interpretation needed, it is there in black and white for the minions to follow)

MFR-1=01 Return not required to be mailed or filed....from the 6209 manual, but I digress.

Check this out...3.17.243.2 (10-01-2009) Reversal of Erroneous Abatements
1. General - This section provides instructions for overriding Master File computer programming that prevents the reversal of abatement transactions after the Statute of Limitations for Assessment has expired.

How do you like that? They even give instructions on how to override the Master File......tampering? you bet....but I digress. A lot of this is discussed over at Codebusters. A lot of discussion about the IMF and the codes they contain.

People have been pushing this IMF proposal in my direction for many years now. Here is a big hitch with it. You will never get your decryption past Rules of Evidence in tax court. Even a criminal prosecution will never let it get into evidence. - Not the decryption. So you would need to summon an IRS agent qualified to decrypt the IMF under oath on the witness stand.

That is the case I was talking about... was that Lewis Vincent?

[gdude]

I managed to get my IMF onto the record in a TC case. The judge asked respondent,"Well it is your record, correct? admitted." Of course respondent hates it when you get their IMF on record.

This was an NOD case , but there was no code in the iMF stating that a statutory NOD had been issued (TC494). That is not my interpretation, it is the 6209 manual....their manual. As you know , no NOD, no juris. My case did not rest on this ,but many other errors. The lack of NOD in IMF was just one.

[David Merrill]

I managed to get my IMF onto the record in a TC case. The judge asked respondent,"Well it is your record, correct? admitted." Of course respondent hates it when you get their IMF on record.

This was an NOD case , but there was no code in the iMF stating that a statutory NOD had been issued (TC494). That is not my interpretation, it is the 6209 manual....their manual. As you know , no NOD, no juris. My case did not rest on this ,but many other errors. The lack of NOD in IMF was just one.

I cannot follow you because I do not know what the initials mean.

[gdude]

Sorry acronym hell!

NOD-Notice of Deficiency
TC- Tax Court
IMF- Individual Master File
TC494- Transaction Code 494
juris- jurisdiction

[David Merrill]

Thanks! I appreciate that.

[gdude]

Thanks! I appreciate that.

No problem.

Sorry, TDL @ codebusters is brilliant at decoding the IMF, But uses more acronyms than I have ever seen! So , I immediately knew what u were talking about.

Remember, the IMF is the CONTROLLING SOURCE RECORD for auntie... If a transaction code does not appear on that record, it does not exist, or was created OUTSIDE of the IMF....an illegal entry.But I digress..LOL

[David Merrill]

Lately I have heard mention of decrypting the IMF and then prosecuting for lack of Assessment Authority as stated in the IR Code.


Of course respondent hates it when you get their IMF on record.

Respondent - to a counterclaim?

[shikamaru]

People have been pushing this IMF proposal in my direction for many years now. Here is a big hitch with it. You will never get your decryption past Rules of Evidence in tax court. Even a criminal prosecution will never let it get into evidence. - Not the decryption. So you would need to summon an IRS agent qualified to decrypt the IMF under oath on the witness stand.

I see fixing the IMF to avoid court, not to enter it.

If one is in Tax Court beyond pleading, she or he just plead into the status of as taxpayer.

The question then becomes not if one is a liable for a tax, but how much.