Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 64

Thread: Supporting Schedule for the 1040 Form

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Supporting Schedule for the 1040 Form

    Here is an example of the supporting schedule for the 1040 Form.



  2. #2
    In this and other examples of supporting schedule one can see that suitor attempts to recover SS, MED and other withholdings. Question which arises is:
    SS and alike payments are withheld by employer and suitor could never explicitly redeem those in LM. Therefore, IRS can assume that those withholding being made in FRN.
    For all suitors who just have modified bank signature (or explicitly redeeming pay checks) this feels like a dangerous thing to do for reasons stated above.
    For the suitors with Default Judgment in U.S. District Court - I don’t see any contradictions, so all power to you .
    I hope that my conclusions are wrong, since it looks like many of “Non Default Judgment Suitors” may follow this or similar template.
    To me it gets down to very simple perspective. Money that one doesn't handle and explicitly redeems in LM are theirs and subject to their fees/taxes etc.
    Last edited by realname; 04-07-13 at 04:28 PM.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by realname View Post
    In this and other examples of supporting schedule one can see that suitor attempts to recover SS, MED and other withholdings. Question which arises is:
    SS and alike payments are withheld by employer and suitor could never explicitly redeem those in LM. Therefore, IRS can assume that those withholding being made in FRN.
    For all suitors who just have modified bank signature (or explicitly redeeming pay checks) this feels like a dangerous thing to do for reasons stated above.
    For the suitors with Default Judgment in U.S. District Court - I don’t see any contradictions, so all power to you .
    I hope that my conclusions are wrong, since it looks like many of “Non Default Judgment Suitors” may follow this or similar template.
    To me it gets down to very simple perspective. Money that one doesn't handle and explicitly redeems in LM are theirs and subject to their fees/taxes etc.
    Thank you for pointing that out TrueName,


    If you are not comfortable about doing this then do not. The suitor and I discussed this and he feels that what is going on is at the point of entering the transaction. In other words the Treasury accepts the increment of the national debt as entered from the bank (endorsement of paychecks) and then again (double entry) from the 1040 Form. Therefore to segregate out the smaller transactions is an admission that redeeming lawful money is perfectly legitimate.

    Therefore even though the suitor's W-2 did not correspond exactly he got a Refund in 2011 for the three months he was redeeming lawful money. If the Treasury would have bickered that would have been very interesting indeed. The Demand is at the top of the Schedule.



    Regards,

    David Merrill.
    Last edited by David Merrill; 04-07-13 at 09:05 PM.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by realname View Post
    In this and other examples of supporting schedule one can see that suitor attempts to recover SS, MED and other withholdings. Question which arises is: ...........
    We begin by using the usual tools of statutory construction, the first step of which is to determine whether the language has a plain and unambiguous meaning ("12USC411") with regard to the particular dispute. Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 340 (1997). In doing so, “we examine not only the specific provision at issue, but also the structure of the statute as a whole, including its object and policy.” Children’s Hosp. & Health Ctr. v. Belshe, 188 F.3d 1090, 1096 (9th Cir. 1999). If the plain language is unambiguous, that meaning is controlling, and our inquiry is at an end. http://www.bing.com/search?q=HAWKINS...onversationid=
    "And if I could I surely would Stand on the rock that Moses stood"

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by realname View Post
    In this and other examples of supporting schedule one can see that suitor attempts to recover SS, MED and other withholdings.

    Question which arises is:
    SS and alike payments are withheld by employer and suitor could never explicitly redeem those in LM. Therefore, IRS can assume that those withholding being made in FRN.

    For all suitors who just have modified bank signature (or explicitly redeeming pay checks) this feels like a dangerous thing to do for reasons stated above.

    For the suitors with Default Judgment in U.S. District Court - I don’t see any contradictions, so all power to you .
    I hope that my conclusions are wrong, since it looks like many of “Non Default Judgment Suitors” may follow this or similar template.

    To me it gets down to very simple perspective. Money that one doesn't handle and explicitly redeems in LM are theirs and subject to their fees/taxes etc.
    In above, "realname" is referring to this post which contains this image below:

    Name:  1040supportingschedules.jpg
Views: 710
Size:  76.9 KB

    The above bold and italic statements by realname regarding the suitor and this Schedule are NOT correct.

    The suitor was NOT "attempting to recover" said "other withholding amounts" -- Only the FITW amount was requested to be refunded.

    Please understand: You are NOT getting back any withheld amounts except the Federal Income Tax Withheld (FITW).

    Again: You are NOT getting back any withheld amounts except the Federal Income Tax Withheld (FITW)

    All the other of withheld amounts are valid amounts that you must pay because of the services being received therefrom by contract agreement, now or in the future (Ex: Social Security).

    These other amounts, along with FITW, are added to the schedule because these other amounts, which are rightly presumed to be FRNs, must also be REDEEMED -- yet not be REFUNDED!

    Only the FITW amount is to be REFUNDED -- because this "tax" is a really an FRN USAGE FEE and you did NOT use FRNs -- you used and demanded by law USNs per 12 USC 411.

    This REFUND is easy to misunderstand from just looking at the above Schedule, but I hope it is clear now. If not, please reply.

    In rebuttal to realname's statement below, one CAN explicitly redeem ALL transactions, IF that is how you made your demand for same for "ALL TRANSACTIONS", and is ON THE RECORD as such, ie. "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)":

    "SS and alike payments are withheld by employer and suitor could never explicitly redeem those in LM."
    Thanks to Chex for his recent post re: Hawkins v. FTB, excerpted below. One's understanding of this Schedule and WHY you are submitting it is crucial to prove your INTENT to REDEEM FRNs - not to EVADE TAXES.

    Hawkins v. FTB

    Summarized by: Nicole Morrow

    Date Filed: 09-15-2014
    Case #: 11-16276
    Circuit Judge Thomas for the Court; Circuit Judges Kleinfeld and Rawlinson
    Full Text Opinion: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...5/11-16276.pdf

    Bankruptcy Law: Specific intent is required for a showing of willful attempt to evade or defeat taxes when assessing in bankruptcy whether tax debt is dischargeable.

    Trip Hawkins co-founded Electronic Arts, Inc. (“EA”) in the late 80’s, early 90’s. He created a wholly owned subsidiary called 3DO to develop and market video games. With his second wife Lisa, they purchased their home for $3.5 million and lived a lavish lifestyle. By the advice of his accountant Hawkins sheltered his gains from tax liability in a Foreign Leveraged Investment Portfolio and an Offshore Portfolio Investment Strategy. Over the next years Hawkins claimed large losses on his tax returns and was audited for his 1997-2000 returns. Around the same time, 3DO deteriorated and filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy court in 2003. While insolvent there was no change in lifestyle for the Hawkins’ and they continued to live lavishly. They filed a personal chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2006. The IRS and California Franchise Tax Board (“FTB”) argued that the Hawkins’ maintenance of their lavish lifestyle while insolvent was a willful attempt to evade taxes and thus unpaid taxes should be excepted from discharge in bankruptcy. The key question for the court here is the meaning of the word “willful”. The bankruptcy court, affirmed by the district court, concluded that the Hawkins’ lifestyle immediately prior and during bankruptcy was a willful attempt to evade taxes and held that Mr. Hawkin’s tax debt would not be dischargeable. The panel reviewed the statutory construction, legislative history, and case precedent to conclude that the term willful was to be narrowly construed. Simply spending beyond one’s means would not qualify as a willful attempt to evade tax because the willful attempt requires the specific intent to evade the tax. The government must establish that the debtor took the actions with the specific intent to evade the tax debt. Merely living beyond one’s means does not suffice to meet the specific intent required to evade tax. REVERSED and REMANDED.
    Do you see now that YOU must be clear in your INTENT when you submit a 1040 Return with Line 21 as the total amount of FRNs that require REDEMPTION based on your demands for lawful money, to the best of your knowledge and belief (INTENT)?

    Does not a substantive non-heasay record exist in your bank with your lawful demands on your checks and deposit slips that constitute admissible evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, your INTENT to comply with 12 USC 411 in redeeming FRNs for lawful money, and NOT to evade taxes?

    And if you are using the below wording in your demands, you are also protected from court action by 12 USC 95a(2).


    Name:  Deposit Slip demand.jpg
Views: 704
Size:  28.4 KB


    http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/p...-immunity.html

    Name:  12USC95a-Immunity.jpg
Views: 712
Size:  115.4 KB



    NOW...

    "What do you have in YOUR wallet?"

    I have USNs!!! And I can PROVE it!

    Also see this post about the Schedule.

    Last edited by doug555; 12-23-14 at 07:59 PM.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by doug555 View Post
    comply with 12 USC 411 in redeeming FRNs for lawful money, and NOT to evade taxes?
    Here is what Criminal Tax Manual 8.00 -- ATTEMPT TO EVADE OR DEFEAT TAX has to say about Attempt To Evade.

    I find it interesting; In Daniel, the defendant argued that there was no tax deficiency since no assessment or demand for payment had been made. The court rejected this reasoning, holding that a tax deficiency arises by operation of law on the date that the return is due if the taxpayer fails to file a tax return and the government can show a tax liability.


    Operation of law . The manner in which an individual acquires certain rights or liabilities through no act or cooperation of his or her own, but merely by the application of the established legal rules to the particular transaction.

    Also on that same page is this ...........

    A certificate of assessments and payments is prima facie evidence of the asserted tax deficiency, which, if unchallenged, may suffice to prove the tax due and owing.
    Last edited by Chex; 12-15-14 at 12:39 AM.
    "And if I could I surely would Stand on the rock that Moses stood"

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Chex View Post
    Here is what Criminal Tax Manual 8.00 -- ATTEMPT TO EVADE OR DEFEAT TAX has to say about Attempt To Evade.

    I find it interesting; In Daniel, the defendant argued that there was no tax deficiency since no assessment or demand for payment had been made. The court rejected this reasoning, holding that a tax deficiency arises by operation of law on the date that the return is due if the taxpayer fails to file a tax return and the government can show a tax liability.


    Operation of law . The manner in which an individual acquires certain rights or liabilities through no act or cooperation of his or her own, but merely by the application of the established legal rules to the particular transaction.

    Also on that same page is this ...........

    A certificate of assessments and payments is prima facie evidence of the asserted tax deficiency, which, if unchallenged, may suffice to prove the tax due and owing.

    Did you notice that?! The "OPERATION OF LAW" is TRANSACTION-BASED!


    Remember my post12164 on 12-15-2013?

    "Therefore it is legitimate and preferable to make one's demand TRANSACTION-BASED, to wit:

    "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411 and 95a(2)"

    Using this exact wording above enables one to provide probable cause and justification for listing all transactions on a custom-made 1040 SUPPORTING SCHEDULE that have been presumed to be using FRNs!!!

    Who can rebut that demand? And by what authority? 12 USC 411 does NOT specify any wording requirement or transaction frequency, and there is no corresponding CFR regulation that requires anything.

    One does NOT need to put it on any bank signature card, or on any contract!

    Just decide on the date one wants to begin the demand and then start hand-writing it on the face of one's checks and deposit slips, just under one's name and address in the upper left-hand corner of the document. This then stands nunc pro tunc (now for then), thereafter and forever, as substantive evidence per FRCP 803(6) governing exceptions to hearsay evidence, and is unrebuttable.

    This is the starting date of one's FREEDOM. Make it memorable!!
    And David's reply post12168 on 12-16-2013?

    Thank you! That is why I did not get your point - I misunderstood. Transaction-based redemption. That sinks in.
    Thanks again Chex!

    This is WHY this exact wording is used on my demand:
    "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)"

    See: http://1040relief.blogspot.com/p/getting-started.html
    Last edited by doug555; 12-26-14 at 09:53 PM.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by doug555 View Post
    In above, "realname" is referring to this post which contains this image below:

    Name:  1040supportingschedules.jpg
Views: 710
Size:  76.9 KB

    The above bold and italic statements by realname regarding the suitor and this Schedule are NOT correct.

    The suitor was NOT "attempting to recover" said "other withholding amounts" -- Only the FITW amount was requested to be refunded.

    Please understand: You are NOT getting back any withheld amounts except the Federal Income Tax Withheld (FITW).

    Again: You are NOT getting back any withheld amounts except the Federal Income Tax Withheld (FITW)

    All the other of withheld amounts are valid amounts that you must pay because of the services being received therefrom by contract agreement, now or in the future (Ex: Social Security).

    These other amounts, along with FITW, are added to the schedule because these other amounts, which are rightly presumed to be FRNs, must also be REDEEMED -- yet not be REFUNDED!

    Only the FITW amount is to be REFUNDED -- because this "tax" is a really an FRN USAGE FEE and you did NOT use FRNs -- you used and demanded by law USNs per 12 USC 411.

    This REFUND is easy to misunderstand from just looking at the above Schedule, but I hope it is clear now. If not, please reply.

    In rebuttal to realname's statement below, one CAN explicitly redeem ALL transactions, IF that is how you made your demand for same for "ALL TRANSACTIONS", and is ON THE RECORD as such, ie. "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)":



    Thanks to Chex for his recent post re: Hawkins v. FTB, excerpted below. One's understanding of this Schedule and WHY you are submitting it is crucial to prove your INTENT to REDEEM FRNs - not to EVADE TAXES.



    Do you see now that YOU must be clear in your INTENT when you submit a 1040 Return with Line 21 as the total amount of FRNs that require REDEMPTION based on your demands for lawful money, to the best of your knowledge and belief (INTENT)?

    Does not a substantive non-heasay record exist in your bank with your lawful demands on your checks and deposit slips that constitute admissible evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, your INTENT to comply with 12 USC 411 in redeeming FRNs for lawful money, and NOT to evade taxes?

    And if you are using the below wording in your demands, you are also protected from court action by 12 USC 95a(2).


    Name:  Deposit Slip demand.jpg
Views: 704
Size:  28.4 KB


    http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/p...-immunity.html

    Name:  12USC95a-Immunity.jpg
Views: 712
Size:  115.4 KB



    NOW...

    "What do you have in YOUR wallet?"

    I have USNs!!! And I can PROVE it!

    Also see this post about the Schedule.


    Doug can you be more clear on the issue of receiving a 1099 where all the checks have been redeemed in LM either by actually demand per 12 USC 411 OR with this phrase: Deposited for credit on account or exchanged for non-negotiable federal reserve notes of face value - 12 USC 95a, By John Doe. I believe both the actual statute 12 USC 411 OR the Deposited for credit .... of face value equal the same over all idea of not accepting FRNs. Thanks

    The question remains, that both a W2 and 1099 are tax class 5 forms - for estate and gift tax classification.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Brian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Earth, Alpha Quadrant.
    Posts
    142
    Be careful not to confuse different types of income taxes. 12USC411 may prevent the Springer Income Tax. It will not prevent 16th amendment (Pollock) or Flint v. Stone Tracy income taxes.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by salsero View Post
    Doug can you be more clear on the issue of receiving a 1099 where all the checks have been redeemed in LM either by actually demand per 12 USC 411 OR with this phrase: Deposited for credit on account or exchanged for non-negotiable federal reserve notes of face value - 12 USC 95a, By John Doe. I believe both the actual statute 12 USC 411 OR the Deposited for credit .... of face value equal the same over all idea of not accepting FRNs. Thanks

    The question remains, that both a W2 and 1099 are tax class 5 forms - for estate and gift tax classification.

    12 USC 411 specifies the wording as "redeemed in lawful money on demand".

    We must only make the demand, in present tense, IMO.

    The Trustees must perform the redeeming, as they deem fit.

    The other wording you mention appears to be presuming something has already happened, and is impinging on their domain. Let them alone to do their duty in their own good time, IMO.

Posting Permissions

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