Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 64

Thread: Supporting Schedule for the 1040 Form

  1. #51
    Experience as intelligence nexus for the brain trust, the nunc pro tunc approach of declaring fraud worked well for about three years. Then no longer at all.

    I agree with Michael Joseph. Or as I have been saying, the bankers have been banking on your signature. It is like they remembered the old addage; Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

  2. #52
    Has anyone had experience making 12 USC411, 95a(2) claims of Lawful money demands on funds paid out via a 433-D agreement forced upon someone so as to avoid a levy? Is it reasonable to conclude that monies deposited during the year via lawful money deposited in an account that the IRS draws from to satisfy the 433-D agreement can be re-claimed via la lawful money demand on the following year's filing of the 1040?

    Thanks, Bentley

  3. #53
    These signature agreements are taken quite seriously. That seems to be a big point, and point of contention as I have two trusts where beneficiaries go into dishonor, and the court system will only uphold the banker's side of agreements. The court system is vacant bonding because there are not valid oaths of office. [This is being hashed in more depth on where we can regulate the education value more precisely.]

    Get a look at the Form.

    It would be great if somebody has this experience you wish to seek learn from. Please don't let my interjection stop people from chiming in.
    Last edited by David Merrill; 05-30-16 at 11:43 AM.

  4. #54
    I'm gonna chime in about a minor adjustment to making claims to 12USC95a(2)

    12 USC 95a is now omitted.....

    ....and found again at 50 USC 4305 (b)(2).

  5. #55
    Thank you.

    I point out too, that it would seem to be a graduate student at Cornell Law School who made the change. If it were Congress then it would show up in the Notes as an amendment or repeal.

  6. #56
    Quite right still shows @

  7. #57
    Thank you for that. This is interesting... legislating from a law school website.

    What next!

    This really makes me wonder if the grad student IT guy or gal is reading here? I wonder if I should report this to Cornell!

  8. #58
    P.S. I got email addresses from this Page. The Subject is "Breach of Trust".

    Which is to presume that Cornell Law is a trusted website to begin with.

    I find it a bit disturbing that, let's presume for now an IT grad student is presuming to legislate for Congress... by "Omitting" statutes from the US Code.

    Please note that Congress has not omitted that statute.

    It started bothering me enough to mention it. Please keep the law you display on your website coherent with the actual law.

    Thank you.
    David Merrill.

  9. #59

    Yes, the 433-D is an 'Installment agreement' with the IRS but there are multiple issues with this form, and the IRS for that matter.

    1. The form says "Department of the Treasury - Internal Revenue Service" but this clearly violates Treasury Order 150-06. Treasury Order 150-06, issued in 2005,
    cancelled the Internal Revenue Service designation over 10 years ago. The T.O. issued in 2005 cancelled the order of 1953 which renamed The Bureau of Internal Revenue to the Internal Revenue Service. Now it is just an 'entity' as the treasury order plainly states. Perhaps IRS agents should be called Entity agents. See

    2. Treasury Order 150-02, relating to the current Organization and Functions of the Internal Revenue Service, was also cancelled. This occurred in 2006. It cancelled the treasury order issued in 2001 that defined the existing Area structure we find today. None of the IRS organization should be in existence, but it is. Here is but one example, that of the SB/SE Area.

    3. The IRS as we know it does not have a valid charter. The last one on file was signed in 2010 by Commissioner Shulman.

    For these reasons, and others too numerous to list here, renders the 433-D form (and ALL 1040s) a fraudulent document, in violation of 26 USC 7207.

    Perhaps Americans should protect themselves by employing this technique found here:

    Regards, Bentley

  10. #60
    Well, we found 95a. I have not heard back from Cornell Law staff.

    What kind of claim were you thinking of drafting? I am thinking if you demand lawful money though, you would leave it to the IRS to deduct the refund off the settlement agreement.

Posting Permissions

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