Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 92

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

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    JohnnyCash
    Guest

    Question IRS inquiry: Do incorrect 1099s need rebuttal?



    certified mail green card shows IRS received it November 5th.

  2. #2
    Since you made your "demand", technically no rebuttal necessary but a return will still need to be filed and it may result in an audit. The path that leads to the least aggravations would be to rebut any 1099's and any other information returns.

  3. #3
    JohnnyCash
    Guest
    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.

  4. #4
    JohnnyCash
    Guest
    I'd like to report that 30 days have passed with no response received to my inquiry.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Treefarmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    in the woods known to some as Tanasi
    Posts
    476
    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.
    In my experience, ANYTHING that gets reported to the IRS on an information return such as 1099 or W-2 or any other such form, is taxable income.
    What you redeem that taxable income for AFTER you receive it is your business, but first the IRS will require you to pay tax on it.
    The contract nexus is the bank, which is the "trade or business" with the US.

    I don't keep showing this document because of any remedy it may or may not contain, but because it does such an excellent job of documenting HOW one becomes a taxpayer slave.
    To get free of income tax, one must have no bank accounts.
    Treefarmer

    There is power in the blood of Jesus

  6. #6
    JohnnyCash
    Guest
    Yes, as a CtC-reader I'm aware of the custom "trade or business" definition. I would agree that anything reported on an info return such as a 1099 or W2 carries the PRESUMPTION of taxable income. Enough presumption for the IRS to run with, enough for the IRS to attempt to convince you you've made taxable income. Conditioning. Don't forget this is a scam run by banksters in conjunction with US government. As my letter of inquiry above reveals... these presumptions are mere hearsay, you have a right to be heard regarding the true nature of these payments.

    In my experience the determinant of taxable income is endorsement of Federal Reserve credit. That is the contract nexus. I say this because I have bank accounts, correction, my PERSON has bank accounts, but I have been unmolested by the IRS for five (5) years because I deposit LAWFUL MONEY into those bank accounts via restricted endorsement. I am non-contracting. I have also seen with my own eyes, a corporation fully-ensnared in the matrix, who paid payroll taxes late and assessed penalties by statute because of it, threatened with levy, who then filed Form 843 with evidence OF HAVING REDEEMED LAWFUL MONEY ... and won. The IRS backed down. They didn't want to go there. I have repeatedly seen the Feds not want to touch this issue of "Fed Reserve credit v. lawful money" with a ten foot pole. Says something, doesn't it. Lawful money remedy works for PERSONs and Corporations too.

    Treefarmer, if the IRS is pursuing you for a period when you actually were endorsing Federal Reserve credit, well then, your options are limited. After all, you or your ENTITY was contracting wasn't it? Albeit a non-disclosed, hidden contract. You might sue for "fraud by omission" or hint at it anyway. After all, the IRS doesn't know exactly when you started redeeming lawful money. Can you imagine a lawsuit where the taxpayer was asked "on what date did you first restrictively endorse a check into lawful money?" NOT GONNA HAPPEN. I submit to you they absolutely cannot have any sort of this talk on the record, it would admit the scam. Therefore you might bluff them into a stand-down victory... with just the threat of a lawsuit.
    Last edited by JohnnyCash; 12-11-12 at 10:28 PM.

  7. #7
    JohnnyCash
    Guest
    I just received a Form 1099-MISC for 2012. As you know, this Box 7 amount is reported to the IRS and carries the presumption of statutory income. But it isn't, I redeemed lawful money the whole year. So I may have a complete success story to show later. Unfortunately this may take awhile to develop. The banksters/IRS won't know anything's amiss until April 15th when no matching Form 1040 (return of income) is filed.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyCash View Post
    Treefarmer, if the IRS is pursuing you for a period when you actually were endorsing Federal Reserve credit, well then, your options are limited.
    Absolutely Not. Wrong Wrong Wrong.

  9. #9
    ManOntheLand
    Guest
    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. #10

Posting Permissions

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