IRS inquiry: Do incorrect 1099s need rebuttal?

[ManOntheLand]

If you think about it, that is an outstanding verification about Redeeming Lawful Money. Rather than reassess the IRS agent/attorney thoughtfully (contemplation) applies the Refund to a past liability.

MOtL;

This also demonstrates what I am loosely calling science. For the three suitors who have acquired FrivPens upon RLM there are many more who have been getting refunds, with IRS blessings for many years running.

We have a thread about Exactly What Does the IRS Agent Think. I have not been updating it lately but the links are there. If you find any new notices or memorandums to IRS agents please update the thread.

While I do not discount your attempts to pursuade me to write the IRS agents for permission or opinions, I am simply not going to do that. - Meaning I will not suggest it to anybody. Congress has already established the law and the courts support that law. Looking to IRS agent/attorneys for legal advice seems pretty dumb to me. If you wish to do it by all means, please share the experience here.



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. The Diminished Money Counterclaim thread is very revealing too. Carefully examine how the judge acknowledges the petitioner seeks US Notes in the form of FRNs without making any slur. Also, even getting this close, the judge will not sign an order. It is electronic only (all of a sudden). There is no Order at all - only hearsay from the clerk that the judge has made the Order.

David I don't care about whether or not you suggest anybody write a letter to IRS. I am done talking about it. I personally found such a tactic necessary as a precaution once auntie started hammering me with frivolous penalties for 4 different tax years, and launched a campaign of paper terrorism (intents to levy, recording a notice of lien) in case they were setting the stage for a criminal prosecution to make an example of me. My letter is in my administrative record with IRS and is therefore automatically admissible evidence. So I picked apart the IRC 6012 filing requirement and the myth of a direct tax on all that come in in that letter because I know they don't ever want any jury to hear about that.

Again, the real issue I hoped to bring to everyone's attention is whether it is wise in the long run to file a 1040 to take a "deduction" for LMR even if it is "working". Let us take note that Pete Hendrickson was indicted for filing false documents six years after getting a full refund for 2002, even though they apparently never tried to get the refund back. So let's not pretend it is not possible for this to happen to a suitor. All you are left with, then, is arguing that although this could happen, somehow it won't.

For any of you attack dogs on this forum, that is not to say such a prosecution would be warranted. It is to say such a prosecution is possible, warranted or not, and eventually quite likely if IRS comes to see the spread of LMR as a threat to their survival. Are you suitors who are 1040 filers going to keep filing a 1040 after that? Maybe all of you are wise enough to know how to handle frivolous penalties and even a prosecution and keep yourselves out of hot water. But if you are that smart, I would hope you would see the wisdom of not filing at all rather than blindly trusting that the IRS will never hassle you or anyone else for your method of filing. I would also hope you have some concern about those less knowledgable who will inevitably try to take LMR deductions on a 1040, who will be more vulnerable to IRS harrassment, and could be used by IRS to discredit the idea of remedy to prevent its spread.

I don't disagree with your metaphysics David, as it pertains to remedy. I don't let fear dictate my choices. But I don't throw all caution to the wind either. I am sure if you were to go skydiving, you would wear a parachute.

The reaction of the "system" to LMR is impressive, David. No doubt about that. I have been redeeming lawful money since last year when I first learned about it (I saw no possible harm in making the demand) and I am in the process of incorporating LMR into my non-filing approach. It appears you and I are both non-filers. My objective is to first do no harm to myself. I am not about to sign a 1040, attach W-2's and take an LMR deduction. Not after what I went through with CTC.

Instead, I claim exempt on W-4, thus I have no refund to claim (except FICA). I have not filed anything for 2011 or 2012. I am content for now to sit back and see if they ever send me a notice indicating they believe I need to file. At that point, I can refuse the presentment for cause, or simply fill out the response form they send with such inquiries, explaining that I am not aware of any filing requirement, and not aware of any requirement to disclose any information to them. Let them make their case to me that I am required to file.

As nice as it is to see suitors getting refunds, to believe that a counter-strategy by "the system" will not eventually be developed, to take advantage of any weakness in the implementation of LMR (by ANYONE) is hopelessly naive. To me the biggest weakness in the approach by far is signing the 1040 to claim the refund.

A suitor's position should be that the amounts owed to him were erroneously collected as "tax", and that the suitor is entitled to recover those amounts under principles of equity. An administrative claim for the return of the suitor's property could be made with a simple written statement, and if the refund claim is not honored, there is a cause of action in Federal Court to recover the suitor's property.

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. There is a better way to implement remedy with IRS than filing the 1040. Wake up.