IRS recognizes Redeeming Lawful Money - Yes!!!

[ManOntheLand]

The Achilles heel of any alternate method of filing a return is that you are filing a return. Once the system is targeting your style of return, they can claim the return you filed is frivolous and false etc. and the party is over.

The solution is simple: stop playing by their rules (i.e. don't file a return until it is explained to your satisfaction why it is required), don't rely on a single argument for not filing, go on the attack so that its not just about defending yourself from not filing, and MOST IMPORTANT have at least one argument that a third grader can understand and will grasp on a common sense level.

"Everybody has to pay their fair share" appeals to a very superficial level of common sense, which is why it won't go away. This is what you are up against. A good counter-argument on about the same grade level is: "Who says I have to?" and "Show me what I am required to do and/or why I am required to do it, and I will do it!!" Pretty powerful. That alone has won some tax acquittals, and it may ensure you are never in court to begin with. Think they can or will ever prove you are required to file, or why? They would rather put up with you not filing and leave everybody wondering.

To make remedy useful for tax purposes, and protect against the inevitable IRS assault on remedy, people will be much safer questioning whether they are required to file at all than to send in documents claiming a deduction for lawful money that a dumbed down jury won't understand ("My turbo tax didn't have that deduction!") and which can easily be used against the filer for frivolous penalties or criminal charges. Again, they do not care one bit if your argument is actually on their list of "frivolous positions". Your return will be frivolous because they said so! Don't think for a second that any of your great arguments about why your position is not frivolous will make a bit of difference. I know remedy seems to be "working" right now just fine, and some people are getting refunds. So did CTC filers for 8 or 9 years. Things will change fast if remedy catches on. Let's get real. Pete Hendrickson still insists that the refunds people have gotten from CTC filings "prove" he is 100% correct. His federal felony conviction indicates that at least his method left something to be desired.

You need more than one argument: You can't count on one "silver bullet" with a beast like IRS, especially one they can paint as a "crazy conspiracy theory" (no offense). You need all the silver bullets you can get your hands on! CTC has a lot of truth to it--its just the method of implementing it that ultimately failed. The same arguments behind a CTC filing could be used as an argument for why you do not have to file at all, in addition to the fact that you are redeeming FRN's for lawful money. What's wrong with having a spare argument (as long as its solid)?

I got sick of being hammered with frivolous return penalties two years ago, so instead of a CTC style return, now I send in a statement to rebut any information returns, based on the duress used against me to force me to furnish a SSN, and to sign a W-4. I did not elect to contribute to FICA and I did not elect to have my payments treated as "wages". I worked in the private sector.

Even a third grader can understand its not ok to force people to sign an agreement. The real beauty of the above statements is that they are FACTUAL. I either consented to give a SSN and sign a W-4 or I did not. What I am claiming the employer did to me is so obviously wrong legally as to be almost self-evident. Other than "did this really happen?" there is no debate!! Unless you want to argue that it is somehow okay that my employer coerced me! This puts you in the position of arguing that my signature actually was not even required on the W-4. Then why was I forced to sign it? And if my SSN was required to work there, why did they not demand that number BEFORE they hired me?


I make it clear that I am not a U.S. citizen or resident, and that I did not have any income effectively connected to a trade or business AND (thanks to you David!) that I am redeeming lawful money. These are technically legal arguments, but depend so much on facts within my personal knowledge that they are virtually impossible to contest. You want to tell me I actually am a U.S. Citizen? You want to say I did work in a trade or business within the U.S.? Or that I did not redeem for lawful money? Without being able to contest these, no tax nexus can be established.

Go on the attack: I like the idea of filing something in the USDC from the get go instead of dealing with IRS clowns. I hope a good reliable method in that vein can be worked out. But as long as you are going on the offense, demand that IRS update their records to remove the false information they have received (e.g. the W-2) , unless they can rebut your dispute statement within a reasonable time. If they don't do that, and especially if they start claiming I need to file, I have laid the grounds for a lawsuit that anybody can understand--my right to demand that incorrect information about me be corrected (unless they can prove its true, which they cannot). And all my other claims are built into it already--clues to how their scam works---things they do not want talked about in any court EVER. Think they will give me my refund and leave me alone then?

The IRS still controls the Courts and they still control the media (don't be fooled by the recent "scandal"-- nothing will change over there). You don't want a close game against the IRS in the court of public opinion, you have to beat them by 8 touchdowns. You have to show them that you could make your case that you are so OBVIOUSLY right that even third graders know you are right. And people have to see that there is a SAFE way to implement what you are talking about here on this forum. Otherwise its just sophistry.

They have built their scam with layers of fraud. So the solution should also be multi-layered. Let's not hang our hats totally on lawful money. You already know you are right. They know you are right. But the remedy will be safer in the long run if its integrated with other topics they wish to avoid and can't label a "frivolous argument", such as factual claims about coercion and duress.