Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 92

Thread: IRS inquiry: Do incorrect 1099s need rebuttal?

  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Jethro View Post
    I would avoid such a confrontational approach, particularly since it's unnecessary. Remember, "payers" are typically legal morons. They don't care about OMB numbers; all they care about is "not getting in trouble". So here is what I did recently in a similar situation...

    I worked a job and after its completion was presented with a "Form W-9" and told it was "very important" to fill it out "right away". However, I told the lady who gave it to me, "This is the wrong form for me. Are you aware there are many other forms besides the 'W-9'?" She replied that she's heard of other forms before, but didn't know about them, much less have any of them with her. I told her that when I returned home I would supply her with the "most appropriate" form relative to me: a modified W-8BEN. (The "stock" IRS W-8BEN is to be avoided as it's chock full of nasty, presumptuous language repugnant to the rights of We the People.)

    So I later sent her the modified W-8BEN form - certificate of foreign status - and told her they will be happy with this form because this is no 1099 reporting or backup withholding required with it. I send a long an excerpt of Publication 515 highlighted with the "Tip" that "Foreign persons who provide Form TIP W-8BEN, Form W-8ECI, or Form W-8EXP (or applicable documentary evidence) are exempt from backup withholding and Form 1099 reporting." The modified form also included a note that as a nonresident alien, I at no time during the year engaged in a "trade or business" in the U.S. I included no SSN or tax ID number. I did not hear a single peep of protest over this form, and I will not receive a 1099 or be subject to any "reporting" from this job.

    It's vitally important, though, that before using this form you have proper standing to use it. For that, you need admissible evidence of your nonresident alien (to the "U.S.") status - without that, your form W-8 could be rightly rejected. David's libel of review/evidence repository may be one approach to accomplish that, though I took a slightly different route of publicly recording my status documents, then verifying the notary, and certifying the verification with the State.
    Nicely done Jethro! I have been considering the W-8BEN myself. Thanks for sharing the success story. I believe SEDM Family Guardian has a modified W8BEN. You might want to send a copy to auntie as well, specifically to Director of Foreign Operations District in DC.

    For those who might want to try this if your payer refuses to accept a W-8BEN, you may want to request in writing an explanation for their refusal, default them when they inevitably fail to provide a satisfactory explanation, then attach the W-8BEN and proof of their refusal to honor it to whatever form they are forcing you to fill out--providing an incorrect SSN and noting the duress with a TDC on the form (also noting your attachment and perhaps noting your payer's refusal to accept it.

    If it seems too confrontational and you feel it may threaten your job, you can skip the asking for an explanation part. You should keep a copy of the W-BEN they refused and the W-9 and or W-4 for your records and/or place into evidence repository.

    Re: proof of foreign status. The "admissible evidence" can be the W-8BEN itself. The instructions for the form state that "a payer of the income may rely on a properly completed W-8BEN to treat a payment associated with the form W-8BEN as a payment to a foreign person who beneficially owns the amounts paid." Unless they have firsthand personal knowledge that you are a "U.S. person" (as well as the competence and authorization from you to make such a legal determination on your behalf) they have no choice legally but to accept your status as you give it to them. After all, if they were allowed to just do whatever they want with us and our money, why have us sign anything in the first place? They need the illusion of yoru consent!!

    BTW I began filing 1040NR (non-resident alien return) a couple years ago, and the IRS completely accepted it no problem. I have a good friend who submitted a 1040NR to the Bankruptcy Court to comply with the requirement of being current on tax filings. The Trustee obviously thought the 1040NR was odd, and asked a question about it at the hearing. But the bankruptcy went through a few days later, no problem.

    After obtaining my IRS Individual Master File through FOIA request, I saw that my mailing/filing requirement code reflects that they expect a 1040NR return from me not a 1040. To auntie it really doesn't seem to matter what I call myself; if they receive a 1099 or W-2 they will still presume I have a tax obligation. Nonetheless, I think it is important to get your foreign status established so that any debate can be properly focused on whether or not your payment received was income that was "effectively connected to a trade or business in the U.S." or from a "U.S. source". Since auntie would prefer that Americans think the tax falls on all of us "just because",I believe the declared non-resident alien status of an American living in America is valuable in that auntie does not want a discussion of this topic in court. I think it is good insurance from auntie's harassment in terms of staying out of court.

  2. #42

    FRN use is not the only income tax nexus.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    Check out the Diminished Money Counterclaim thread. By notifying the Fed there is really no need to involve the employer at all. And even if redeeming lawful money were to fail to get a Refund you are still better off usually to have a job and career.
    David, I don't understand your reasoning that simply notifying the Fed that you are redeeming lawful money makes it unnecessary to involve the employer. Please correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is the following:

    Your use of FRN's is only one basis for taxation--a contractual or quasi-contractual one--but it is certainly not the ONLY basis. The use of the SSN and federal "employment" indicated by a W-2, or "trade or business within the U.S." indicated by a 1099 form creates at least TWO other independent nexuses for taxation. Because of these two other nexuses, it does not matter if you demand that your payer pay you in lawful money or if you redeem the payment in lawful money (although I think doing at least the latter is necessary to avoid that particular nexus). The two other nexuses are as follows:

    1) The use of the SSN in connection with your work performed connects your payment to the United States through the contractual FICA nexus. By "voluntarily" agreeing to have deductions made and paid into FICA, you are participating in the insurance program under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act. You thereby accept a "benefit" of being one of the "insured" through the United States in bankruptcy, which obligates you as a surety for the U.S. debt and to pay income tax for those "wages"as defined in I.R.C. 3121.

    This is, in truth, a compelled contract and compelled benefit. But you have no right to complain if you keep giving "your" SSN to "employers" who demand it from you without at least asking somebody why this is required and at some point recognizing and calling this what it is: threat, duress, coercion and FRAUD. Followed by disputing this "wage" reporting on the basis of said threat duress coercion and fraud.

    This dispute of "wage" reporting must be made and resolved FIRST before you can claim you are not subject to income tax, and certainly before you can claim any refund without possibly causing yourself serious problems with auntie--this is where Peter Hendrickson got it wrong and still gets it wrong: he just includes the refund of FICA in the amount he reports for "federal tax withheld" on the 1040, while failing to adequately rebut the W-2 form.

    As we all know, though Pete and his followers got 100% refunds for years this way, Pete eventually went to prison for filing false documents. The same thing could happen to lawful money folks who file returns trying to claim a lawful money deduction without recognizing the other nexuses for taxation. Auntie will not explain such nexuses to you. They are contractual--it is assumed you already KNOW. Auntie will simply hammer you with frivolous penalties and perhaps even criminal prosecution for filing "false" documents. I think this lawful money redemption is the real deal. Eventually, therefore, auntie will look for any way to shut it down it by discrediting it publicly--probably by sending somebody (or a few people) to prison who fail to use it properly in dealing with auntie.

    PLEASE PLEASE get auntie to update her records first (or at least default auntie) to reflect that you were NOT paid "wages" as defined in Subtitle C, before you go claiming any refund of FICA with auntie. If you are not a "U.S person" the IRS requires that you go to the employer first to claim a refund for excess FICA withholding. If you do not receive such refund, then you may claim a refund from IRS on Form 843. I have no idea if that would work or not. If you are afraid to make the demand for refund from your employer, perhaps you could just tell the IRS that on your 843 form. Otherwise you have to just kiss that money goodbye. But you still don't have to agree to this compelled benefit.


    Every time you voluntarily use "your" SSN (which is not "yours" but is property of SSA) you are presumably doing so to receive a federal benefit of some kind, making all payments connected to that number federally taxable, whether you redeem lawful money or not.


    2) Your signature on W-4 and/or W-9 along with providing a SSN, creates the presumption that you are engaged in federally privileged "employment" or "effectively connected with a trade or business within the U.S." OR that you have elected to have your payments treated that way (SAME difference as far as auntie is concerned). For most of us, of course, we are not actually federally employed or engaged in a trade or business within the U.S., but are "voluntarily" electing (under duress usually) to have our payments treated as federally connected "wages".) See the voluntary withholding agreement provision under IRC 3402. Who is this provision supposed to be for, if all employers everywhere are already required to withhold tax?

    The withholding of income tax from "wages" and reporting of payments as "effectively connected to a trade or business" is based not ONLY on the tax nexus of the transfer of FRN's to you (which can be dealt with by demanding payment in lawful money and/or redeeming in lawful money) but is independently based on the power Congress has always had to lay an excise upon federally-connected privilege (or on anyone who chooses to have their payments treated as such, since Congress cannot impair a "contract" by which you "agree" to allow withholding from your paychecks and "agree" to have it treated as federally connected.

    You are presumed to know what it is you are agreeing to when you put your signature to W-4 or W-9 or 1040 for that matter. Why should auntie have to explain it to you? if you don't understand what you are agreeing to then why are you signing it? Oh yeah, because you "have to" to work and have a career. Just like you "have" to file a 1040. Also known as threat duress coercion and FRAUD.

    Regardless of what form in which your payment comes to you, the activity that generated the payment is presumed taxable, as measured by the amount of income it produced, solely due to your providing a SSN and agreeing to treat your payments as federally connected. It is "income" on that basis, regardless of what you do with the income after that. They don't care whether you bond your paycheck into the Fed Reserve or not if these other contractual nexuses are in place. The W-2 or 1099 is all the proof they need to presume you received FRN's AND that you received "wages" or other "effectively connected" income.

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by ManOntheLand View Post
    BTW I began filing 1040NR (non-resident alien return) a couple years ago, and the IRS completely accepted it no problem. I have a good friend who submitted a 1040NR to the Bankruptcy Court to comply with the requirement of being current on tax filings. The Trustee obviously thought the 1040NR was odd, and asked a question about it at the hearing. But the bankruptcy went through a few days later, no problem.

    After obtaining my IRS Individual Master File through FOIA request, I saw that my mailing/filing requirement code reflects that they expect a 1040NR return from me not a 1040. To auntie it really doesn't seem to matter what I call myself; if they receive a 1099 or W-2 they will still presume I have a tax obligation. Nonetheless, I think it is important to get your foreign status established so that any debate can be properly focused on whether or not your payment received was income that was "effectively connected to a trade or business in the U.S." or from a "U.S. source". Since auntie would prefer that Americans think the tax falls on all of us "just because",I believe the declared non-resident alien status of an American living in America is valuable in that auntie does not want a discussion of this topic in court. I think it is good insurance from auntie's harassment in terms of staying out of court.
    I agree that establishing foreign status is vital, especially if "you" are already identified in their system as a "U.S. citizen" or "resident alien" which one presumably is if you ever applied for a SS Card (see 26 CFR 301.6109-1(g): "A social security number is generally identified in the records and database of the Internal Revenue Service as a number belonging to a U.S. citizen or resident alien individual.) I did not, however, go to the IRS with this matter (because, who are they?) Instead I went to the Dept. of State (who handles all matters of citizenship) via a U.S. embassy (who may take citizenship declarations). I told them to inform all their alphabet agencies of my correct status, as it has always been.

    What citizenship status does "your" IMF show?

  4. #44
    Jethro;


    I read the premise of your lengthy post and have decided to address it only.

    Looking at this Notice and Demand, on should take note that the suitor's original complaint in the Miscellaneous Case File (evidence repository) contains the 1040 Form and the Treasury has already sent his full refund in record time. This is why there is no need to involve the employer. The employer has been sending withholdings as per agreement and "law" but aside from not having use of his full paycheck, there has been no injury. [Of course there is pegging the US note in value to the FRN but the suitor is very happy with his Refund and does not want to pursue the injury on the record.]

    In your subsequent post, I like the way you think. According to the law (Title 12 USC §411) you only need to notify the Federal Reserve Bank - through agent or principal. What the brain trust has discovered recently is that the Notice and Demand in the "exclusive original cognizance" of the US Government served directly on the Federal Reserve Bank and enclosed in the Counterclaim, with the 1040 Form inside it is effective and efficient.

    Experience tells me elaborating the Notice and Demand and bossing around the other officials may just make you difficult to employ.



    Regards,

    David Merrill.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    Jethro;


    I read the premise of your lengthy post and have decided to address it only.

    Looking at this Notice and Demand, on should take note that the suitor's original complaint in the Miscellaneous Case File (evidence repository) contains the 1040 Form and the Treasury has already sent his full refund in record time. This is why there is no need to involve the employer. The employer has been sending withholdings as per agreement and "law" but aside from not having use of his full paycheck, there has been no injury. [Of course there is pegging the US note in value to the FRN but the suitor is very happy with his Refund and does not want to pursue the injury on the record.]

    In your subsequent post, I like the way you think. According to the law (Title 12 USC §411) you only need to notify the Federal Reserve Bank - through agent or principal. What the brain trust has discovered recently is that the Notice and Demand in the "exclusive original cognizance" of the US Government served directly on the Federal Reserve Bank and enclosed in the Counterclaim, with the 1040 Form inside it is effective and efficient.

    Experience tells me elaborating the Notice and Demand and bossing around the other officials may just make you difficult to employ.



    Regards,

    David Merrill.
    I like and agree with David's post.

    I did NOT tell my employer anything, or notify the bank.

    Just writing "lawful money is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411" on all checks and deposits slips was enough "substantive evidence" for me for the past 2 years to get refunds, via principal/agent doctrine and Federal Rules of Evidence 803 (6).

    YOU are the one that determines whose "image" you are using on the "money" (FRN vs USN), NOT the employer, in accord with Mt 22:19-21. I believe this taxation account defines the "red line" that the Creator will not let Satan violate, much like the line drawn for Satan in his dealings with Job. This "red line" is 12 USC 411.

    Satan learned this "red line" lesson well from violating the Creator's "title" to His People in Egypt, resulting in the Exodus and the setting up of the "Holy Nation"... a matter promised to be repeated today in the supernatural fulfillment Holydays #2 and #3.

    I am now adding "full discharge is demanded 12 USC 95a(2)" as well (the insurance policy for the transaction) on bills that are turned into money orders, in preparation for a Tort claim if the obligation is not discharged, in accord with Ex 3:7-22.

    Douglas Raymond
    Last edited by doug555; 05-22-13 at 10:43 PM.

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Jethro View Post
    I agree that establishing foreign status is vital, especially if "you" are already identified in their system as a "U.S. citizen" or "resident alien" which one presumably is if you ever applied for a SS Card (see 26 CFR 301.6109-1(g): "A social security number is generally identified in the records and database of the Internal Revenue Service as a number belonging to a U.S. citizen or resident alien individual.)

    In 26 CFR 301.6109-1(g)(2) it is acknowledged that a SSN can "belong to" a non-resident alien.

    According to this provision of 26 CFR, once you have been identified as a U.S. person or foreign person in the records and database of IRS, they will presume that status permanently "until the circumstances change". It also says if your status changes, you must notify the IRS of the change "under such procedures" as the IRS "shall prescribe".

    I am not sure what procedure has been "prescribed" exactly. I can tell you that when I stopped filing 1040 with my usual IRS service center and instead filed a 1040NR with the Austin, Texas IRS center, they apparently accepted my foreign status and updated their records (at least for that year).

    To be on the safe side, I assume I will need to rebut "U.S. person" status in terms of the IRS database every time a third party sends out a W-2 with my SSN because such form indicates at least an election to be treated as a "U.S. person". I have to make it clear to them that I did NOT voluntarily furnish a SSN or elect to be treated as U.S. citizen or resident (but was coerced into doing so by the employer). Otherwise the IRS may presume my circumstances have changed, and place my SSN back into "U.S. person" status in their database.

    With a 1099, I would think that the SSN status is not affected, since it does not necessarily presuppose I am a "U.S. person". But I still have to contest that I had "effectively connected" income if I believe it was NOT effectively connected and do not want it to be treated as taxable on that basis.


    I did not, however, go to the IRS with this matter (because, who are they?) Instead I went to the Dept. of State (who handles all matters of citizenship) via a U.S. embassy (who may take citizenship declarations). I told them to inform all their alphabet agencies of my correct status, as it has always been.


    The fact that you went to that effort definitely speaks to the sincerity of your belief in your position. But I don't think that will help you for tax purposes, as they treat a U.S. citizen and "U.S. resident alien" basically the same. Given the rules prescribed in 26 CFR, it is probably necessary for you to also communicate your status directly to IRS, unless you want them to presume "U.S. person" status for your SSN. Their false presumptions are where all the hassles begin.

    For anyone wondering why this matters: a U.S. Citizen or resident is taxed on his worldwide income--it does not matter where your income came from. A non-resident alien is taxed only on income "effectively connected with a trade or business in the U.S." Of course you have to know what the terms "U.S. citizen" "resident" and "trade or business" really mean for any of that to do you any good. Most Americans assume they are "U.S. citizens", and even some who have figured out they are not will still call themselves "U.S. residents". The widespread ignorance of the meanings of these terms helps keep the myth alive that all Americans are taxed simply for making money.


    What citizenship status does "your" IMF show?
    Its not a citizenship status per se, since they treat a U.S. citizen and U.S. resident (alien) the same for tax purposes. It is a mail/filing requirement code, which tells them what form they are required to mail to you and what form you are required to file. This code could indicate that a 1040 is required, a 1040NR or even no requirement to file anything.

    According to the IRS 6209 manual, the MFR code they have in "my" IMF Specific for 2007 corresponds to a 1040NR non-resident alien return.

    Incidentally, there is also a VAL code in the IMF, with a digit of 1 indicating the SSN is "not valid for the person using it", per the 6209 manual. My IMF for 2007 has a VAL-1 code. Apparently most of us have VAL-1 codes in our IMF. Perhaps an indicator that the system treats us as illegal imposters?

    In my experience and research, non-resident alien status for Americans seems to be something Auntie will quietly acknowledge but does not want to talk about: I think that is because it makes more clear the jurisdictional aspect of federal income tax. Auntie prefers we all believe the myth of a direct tax on all Americans without apportionment.
    Last edited by ManOntheLand; 06-07-13 at 08:54 PM.

  7. #47
    Jethro, somehow I got some of my replies mixed up with your quote and sadly I am not savvy enough to know how to fix it. Sorry, I am not trying to put words in your mouth! But check out the middle of the quoted section for my replies.

    here they are again, extracted from my quote of what you said in your post:

    In 26 CFR 301.6109-1(g)(2) it is acknowledged that a SSN can "belong to" a non-resident alien.

    According to this provision of 26 CFR, once you have been identified as a U.S. person or foreign person in the records and database of IRS, they will presume that status permanently "until the circumstances change". It also says if your status changes, you must notify the IRS of the change "under such procedures" as the IRS "shall prescribe".

    I am not sure what procedure has been "prescribed" exactly. I can tell you that when I stopped filing 1040 with my usual IRS service center and instead filed a 1040NR with the Austin, Texas IRS center, they apparently accepted my foreign status and updated their records (at least for that year).

    To be on the safe side, I assume I will need to rebut "U.S. person" status in terms of the IRS database every time a third party sends out a W-2 with my SSN because such form indicates at least an election to be treated as a "U.S. person". I have to make it clear to them that I did NOT voluntarily furnish a SSN or elect to be treated as U.S. citizen or resident (but was coerced into doing so by the employer). Otherwise the IRS may presume my circumstances have changed, and place my SSN back into "U.S. person" status in their database.

    With a 1099, I would think that the SSN status is not affected, since it does not necessarily presuppose I am a "U.S. person". But I still have to contest that I had "effectively connected" income if I believe it was NOT effectively connected and do not want it to be treated as taxable on that basis.

    The fact that you went to that effort (going to State Dept.) definitely speaks to the sincerity of your belief in your position. But I don't think that will help you for tax purposes, as they treat a U.S. citizen and "U.S. resident alien" basically the same. Given the rules prescribed in 26 CFR, it is probably necessary for you to also communicate your status directly to IRS, unless you want them to presume "U.S. person" status for your SSN. Their false presumptions are where all the hassles begin.

    For anyone wondering why this matters: a U.S. Citizen or resident is taxed on his worldwide income--it does not matter where your income came from. A non-resident alien is taxed only on income "effectively connected with a trade or business in the U.S." Of course you have to know what the terms "U.S. citizen" "resident" and "trade or business" really mean for any of that to do you any good. Most Americans assume they are "U.S. citizens", and even some who have figured out they are not will still call themselves "U.S. residents". The widespread ignorance of the meanings of these terms helps keep the myth alive that all Americans are taxed simply for making money.
    Last edited by ManOntheLand; 05-23-13 at 12:57 AM.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by doug555 View Post
    I like and agree with David's post.

    I did NOT tell my employer anything, or notify the bank.

    Just writing "lawful money is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411" on all checks and deposits slips was enough "substantive evidence" for me for the past 2 years to get refunds, via principal/agent doctrine and Federal Rules of Evidence 803 (6).

    YOU are the one that determines whose "image" you are using on the "money" (FRN vs USN), NOT the employer, in accord with Mt 22:19-21. I believe this taxation account defines the "red line" that the Creator will not let Satan violate, much like the line drawn for Satan in his dealings with Job. This "red line" is 12 USC 411.

    Satan learned this "red line" lesson well from violating the Creator's "title" to His People in Egypt, resulting in the Exodus and the setting up of the "Holy Nation"... a matter promised to be repeated today in the supernatural fulfillment Holydays #2 and #3.

    I am now adding "full discharge is demanded 12 USC 95a(2)" as well (the insurance policy for the transaction) on bills that are turned into money orders, in preparation for a Tort claim if the obligation is not discharged, in accord with Ex 3:7-22.

    Douglas Raymond
    A great approach Douglas Raymond.

    I believe that exercising the available remedy from all obligation and liability for the NAME requires both 12USC411 and 12USC95a(2). The reason for this belief is that demanding lawful money alone doesn't include assignment of all interest; it removes the first lien from the foreign Federal Reserve Bank but it does not address whether or not we are still making adverse claims of ownership in the NAME.

    This is where 12USC95a comes in. I believe that a Notice of Assignment - a formal acknowledgment of what is already true - should be executed for the record. It should be presented to the Secretary of the Treasury along with verbiage which demonstrates one's pledge to each other of: one's life, one's fortune and one's sacred honor as did the original signors of the Declaration. This is the consideration offered for use of the NAME in the public realm with full indemnity. Any and all use, whether it be debits or credits, benefits the United States public trust - we neither gain nor reserve any interest of anything in the NAME. All use benefits the public trust. We only exercise our interest in the beneficial use as protected purchaser by agreement - our pledge in exchange for use.

    Since all title and property has been seized and all money has been appropriated by the United States via the occupying military force, the peaceful inhabitants must be provided for since the ability to own or pay has been removed - a breach of the U.S. Constitutional guarantee under Article 1 Section 10 impairing the obligation of contracts. 12USC95a(2) is the remedy and "new contract" in order for the United States to remain absent culpability of said Constitutional breach creating involuntary servitude.

    Once enough time has passed, the Notice of Assignment stands as accepted and acknowledged - unless they choose to proactively deny remedy and subvert the code which is binding upon public officials. One then notifies the Comptroller of the Currency of the acceptance and acknowledgment of assignment and requests the available alternative to FRNs so as to satisfy all bills, charges and requests for payments in the NAME. Since we are no longer participating as belligerents in the ongoing commercial warfare being waged, an alternative manner and method to operate in the public realm must be provided to those who choose to minister to the public trust peacefully and assist the wounded and injured on the "battlefield" of commerce.

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyCash View Post
    A return is required if I have income above the statutory exemption amount, yes. But I believe these restrictively endorsed checks are not income under the Revenue Acts of Congress. Therefore if I have no statutory income and nothing is withheld from my pay there is no need to file.
    You appear to assume the income is what is being taxed. Not so. Income tax is a tax on an activity, measured by the amount of income involved. Restrictively endorsing your paycheck avoids the nexus of bonding FRN's into fractional reserve lending. But when the employer paid you, the transfer of the amount you were paid is a taxable activity to the employer as an excise based on (presumed) federally connected corporate privilege and therefore "income." Your contribution to FICA from your paycheck is another taxable activity, as it is a privilege/benefit to participate in this program, therefore the amount you were paid is "income". Further, the transfer to you of the payment from the employer is a taxable activity of receiving a gain from (presumed) federally privileged "employment". All of these nexuses of taxation make the amounts involved "gross income" before you take your check to the bank.

    The FICA is just a ruse of course--its just another income tax, but it is masquerading as an insurance account "for you", so the real tax rate you are paying is obscured. But it all goes to the same place.

    If you get 1099 and not a W-2, there is no employment nexus or FICA nexus. But there is another nexus--engaging in a "trade or business within the United States". You are taxed only on "profit" though not gross receipts. Profit or gain is how the Supreme Court defined "income". What they did not spell out clearly is the jurisdictional nexus which must be present (or presumed) for federal taxation. This is because it is presumed you know whether or not you belong in a given jurisdiction--especially federal, as its jurisdiction in the 50 states is exclusively subject matter jurisdiction, based on either the enumerated powers or a contract.

    You may have a presumed requirement to file based on any third party reporting that you received above the minimum gross income. This reporting will be presumed correct if you do not make a rebuttal.
    Last edited by ManOntheLand; 05-23-13 at 06:48 PM.

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph View Post
    A great approach Douglas Raymond.

    I believe that exercising the available remedy from all obligation and liability for the NAME requires both 12USC411 and 12USC95a(2). The reason for this belief is that demanding lawful money alone doesn't include assignment of all interest; it removes the first lien from the foreign Federal Reserve Bank but it does not address whether or not we are still making adverse claims of ownership in the NAME.

    This is where 12USC95a comes in. I believe that a Notice of Assignment - a formal acknowledgment of what is already true - should be executed for the record. It should be presented to the Secretary of the Treasury along with verbiage which demonstrates one's pledge to each other of: one's life, one's fortune and one's sacred honor as did the original signors of the Declaration. This is the consideration offered for use of the NAME in the public realm with full indemnity. Any and all use, whether it be debits or credits, benefits the United States public trust - we neither gain nor reserve any interest of anything in the NAME. All use benefits the public trust. We only exercise our interest in the beneficial use as protected purchaser by agreement - our pledge in exchange for use.

    Since all title and property has been seized and all money has been appropriated by the United States via the occupying military force, the peaceful inhabitants must be provided for since the ability to own or pay has been removed - a breach of the U.S. Constitutional guarantee under Article 1 Section 10 impairing the obligation of contracts. 12USC95a(2) is the remedy and "new contract" in order for the United States to remain absent culpability of said Constitutional breach creating involuntary servitude.

    Once enough time has passed, the Notice of Assignment stands as accepted and acknowledged - unless they choose to proactively deny remedy and subvert the code which is binding upon public officials. One then notifies the Comptroller of the Currency of the acceptance and acknowledgment of assignment and requests the available alternative to FRNs so as to satisfy all bills, charges and requests for payments in the NAME. Since we are no longer participating as belligerents in the ongoing commercial warfare being waged, an alternative manner and method to operate in the public realm must be provided to those who choose to minister to the public trust peacefully and assist the wounded and injured on the "battlefield" of commerce.
    Thanks Anthony Joseph... I really appreciate that! Below is more info for discussion...

    For me, this interest is the equitable title to the reversionary interest of the labor value attached to INFANT since the birth event, as evidenced by the Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) of the INFANT.

    The holder of this COLB must create a Proof of Life record to regain control of this equitable title from probate so that this reversionary interest can re-vest to the INFANT who has been proven “alive”.

    This re-vesting must occur on the record BEFORE said interest can be legitimately re-assigned or transferred to anyone else.

    Then a decision must be made whether said interest should be assigned:
    1) PARTIALLY - on a recurring transaction basis using signed bill-money-order instruments as tender of payments, or
    2) COMPLETELY - on a final closure basis by a formal Notice of Assignment of the entire interest remaining in all of the INFANT’s commercial accounts.


    At the moment, I prefer partial assignments, consisting of turning all BILLS into MONEY ORDER INSTRUMENTS as tender of payments, signing them to effect the equitable title transfer, and then sending them to the IRS as the agent for the US Treasury, with copies of same to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) as supporting evidence to create/amend a formal TIGTA Complaint requesting an investigation and monitoring of the handling of these instruments, and to file, if necessary, a later Tort Claim.

    All bills truly are CREDIT VOUCHERS awaiting assignment by the INFANT’s signature, which thereby converts them into MONEY ORDER INSTRUMENTS that merge both the equitable and legal titles on that one piece of paper, enabling the holder thereof capable of performing the “full discharge” provision of 12 USC 95a(2).

    Any refusal of these instruments invokes State enactments of UCC 3-603(b), which effectively makes the refusing holders thereof liable for said obligations, and at the same time fully discharges the INFANTS for same! A Tort Claim would demand a receipt as formal substantive evidence of this full discharge for the INFANT, under the laws that govern simple contracts (UCC 3-603(a)) for these tender of payments.

    And indeed, these truly are PAYMENTS - not promises to pay – because they are based on lawful money demands, which is effectively-connected to and transfers the equitable title to our asset labor value which is the real consideration and substance behind the credit of the nation, and held in trust at the US Treasury since 1933.

    Douglas Raymond
    Last edited by doug555; 05-23-13 at 10:50 PM.

Posting Permissions

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