IRS inquiry: Do incorrect 1099s need rebuttal?

[Treefarmer]

MOtL said:

" As much as I agree with the process of remedy presented in this forum, I think filing a 1040 while taking an LMR deduction is a big mistake."

I completely agree.
This strategy is sure to bring on frivolous return warnings soon, whenever the Iris 10 40 return evaluator agents get the memo from upstairs.
It seems like they always wait a while in order to draw as many fish into their net as possible and when they see that the catch is big enough to be worth their while, they draw up the net.

[David Merrill]

The IRS claims that I have been "defying" the tax laws for thirty years, using 12 U.S.C. §411 for the last two, (while claiming "Lawful Money Redeemer" as my Occupation), and I get silence from them, my token refund for 2012 was applied to a previous year. Others on here have been redeeming lawful money for many years running. The bear is a mechanical one, and we have seen the man behind the curtain who controls him.

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.

[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.

[David Merrill]

Then again you have yet to apply remedy according to law.

[ManOntheLand]

Then again you have yet to apply remedy according to law.

That does not affect the validity of my point one iota. I find it curious, self-contradictory and even suspicious that for all your talk about remedy, you still encourage suitors to sign their name to a 1040 that clearly constitutes appearance in the IRS jurisdiction. Sorry, but it causes me to be distrustful of your judgment, if not your intentions.

[Michael Joseph]

That does not affect the validity of my point one iota. I find it curious, self-contradictory and even suspicious that for all your talk about remedy, you still encourage suitors to sign their name to a 1040 that clearly constitutes appearance in the IRS jurisdiction. Sorry, but it causes me to be distrustful of your judgment, if not your intentions.

I cannot speak for David Merrill, he is capable of that himself; however, I must say that I would never sign my own name on an IRS form - I would use the name that is on the Birth Certificate and the number assigned to that name.

Equity acts in personam.

[ManOntheLand]

Treefarmer said:

It seems like they always wait a while in order to draw as many fish into their net as possible and when they see that the catch is big enough to be worth their while, they draw up the net.

I agree. This is the pattern. The more valid your position on the return, the greater the potential threat it is to them. Once it gets their attention, (I am sure it has already) they will wait for enough people to file this way, so that when they bring the hammer down, they will instantly have thousands of people who can spread the word that remedy "doesn't work" and that remedy has been "shot down". This will also condition potential jury members to lump "the remedy thing" in with all the other "scams" so they can get a token conviction out of it. More discrediting.

That's how I would do it if I were them and I were trying to discredit remedy. Because if I were them--I would fight like hell for survival. The current system needs people paying into it, regardless of whether they do so out of ignorance or just fear. This props up the "money" system we have, which is backed only by people's confidence that it isn't going anywhere--even if they lack confidence that it serves them.

You know what else I would do if I were trying to discredit remedy? Whatever it takes!! I would even plant an agent provocateur (or encourage a true believer to become one) to advocate remedy, sell it to the tax honesty folks as a silver bullet, win their complete trust, and then encourage them to implement remedy in the most idiotic and indefensible way possible i.e. filing a 1040 claiming a "deduction."

If I were trying to discredit remedy, I would also encourage people to rely solely on this remedy and encourage the belief that it somehow nullifies any other nexus of taxation, and eliminates any need to pay attention to anything learned about taxation in the last four decades. Finally I would encourage arrogance and presumptuousness in those who have received refunds from filing a 1040 with LMR deduction, and encourage a naive belief that the system is not set up to defend itself from the overwhelming brilliance of a suitor and his knowledge of the remedy.

Get a grip and be careful whom you trust. Remedy appears to be legit, but so what? IRS could not care less what you think you know. They deal in presumption, deception and intimidation. If they can't dupe you or intimidate you, they will dupe or intimidate the payroll department at your work to hand over your money. The Powers That Be will enjoy most of all the eventual crushing of your enthusiasm and the demoralization. This leads to either passivity or more belligerence, which they will use as an excuse to crack down with the militarized police state they already have in place.

Any suitor filing a 1040 is playing right into their hands. And guess what? If you are a "taxpayer" (as evidenced by your signature on the 1040, then your LMR deduction IS a frivolous position (but only because you have declared yourself a "taxpayer" by filing the 1040.). Look for its debut as a carefully phrased "frivolous position" coming soon! It's all part of the op.

Just say NO to Ten-four-o!!!

[David Merrill]

Treefarmer is a Pete HENDRICKSON, Cracking the Code victim.

[Michael Joseph]

I think the IRS is just chomping at the bit to get some numbskull into court that has zero clue what they are doing - just following some guru they read about on the internet. They will twist said numbskull like a pretzel and make it LOOK like 12USC411 is no longer valid. I actually heard recently that an attorney actually tried to tell my young friend that US. v RICKMAN was solid proof that making a demand for lawful money was bogus. Now who is the bigger fool, the attorney or my young friend for listening? Actually my friend just laughed, he could not be blown from his foundation - he realized that just because someone has fancy initials behind a name does not mean there is a lick of sense in their head!

So let me get this straight - all I have to do is write what again on my check? This is the fool the IRS is waiting for and they shall have it soon enough. I pity the soul that blindly follows absent knowledge and understanding, wisdom and prudence.

For the Scripture does clearly propound STUDY to show thyself approved. But fools despise wisdom...or the simple pass on and are spoiled.

In the end it appears that men and women have made the IRS to be as the Anakim. They see the IRS as a Giant - and what they perceive is what they will get. If one dwells on fear then fear will manifest in their life. So if one thinks the IRS is a giant and cannot be overcome it would be wise for them to pay up and keep their mouth shut.

Jos_12:4 And the border of Og king of Bashan, (which was of the remnant of the giants) that dwelt at Ashtaroth and at Edrei, giants.

But to the OVERCOMERS who, like Caleb and Joshua say Elohim has promised - let us go forth and begin to possess - to them be the victory. Each man according to his order and rank.

Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with Me in My throne, even as I also overcame, and sat down with My Father in His throne.

How can i return to Kindergarten when I am in College? Kindergarten has nothing for me.

So Study to show thyself approved - if you [collective] feel that you cannot do a thing or the probability is that you will fail - then you have the full liability not to do the thing. So why complain - just get on with life. I grow tired of those bad mouthing Pete HENDRICKSON. Those that trusted in him should just get on with it. What? are they all Pete's children? Is that it? Or are we to move about in full liability? So then, to each his own, in his full liability status. Else, do as your told CHILD because one in limited liability is just that a CHILD in daddy's house.

"Your money"? Pray tell where is "Your" name on the money? And, oh by the way, Federal Reserve Notes and Checks ARE NOT MONEY - they are a legal tender! "Your Money" - now that is just too precious. There goes another MIN-O-SAUR.

To those that are tested because they made a use of 12USC411, shall we all line up and stone David Merrill? I think that is the height of stupidity. No wonder the court sees these a little children WARD comes to mind. Whaaa, I want my money. I am still looking for my name on the Notes. I can't seem to find it on any coin either?

Until the day I become ceasar - which ain't gonna happen - talk about a dog returning to his own vomit. I have interest in the Account held in the NAME but the Titles are not mine. Anyone who comprehends trust law knows the Trustee holds the Property Titles for the benefit of others. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY is an eye opener.

I am sure i make many friends. The time for soft words is over.

Shalom,
MJ

[EZrhythm]

I must say that I would never sign my own name on an IRS form - I would use the name that is on the Birth Certificate and the number assigned to that name.

Equity acts in personam.

Wise decision! ...Because that's how we roll.

Treefarmer said:

Any suitor filing a 1040 is playing right into their hands. And guess what? If you are a "taxpayer" (as evidenced by your signature on the 1040, then your LMR deduction IS a frivolous position (but only because you have declared yourself a "taxpayer" by filing the 1040.). Look for its debut as a carefully phrased "frivolous position" coming soon! It's all part of the op.

All the more reason to understand about disqualifying one's signature or obligation with "By:", "All Rights Reserved", "Without Prejudice", "Authorized Representative", etc. keeping the FIRST MIDDLE LAST or the obligation and one's self separate.

I actually heard recently that an attorney actually tried to tell my young friend that US. v RICKMAN was solid proof that making a demand for lawful money was bogus.

Even the FRS uses case cite to validate "lawful money"; http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_15197.htm