IRS is not required to sign a substitute for return (which they prepare when a taxpayer fails to file.)Originally Posted by walter
No signature from taxpayer on return=no valid return. In Doreen's case, failing to file would probably also be contempt of the court's orders, since she is presumed to be required to file.
Here is what a 19 year old gets from the government in BC.
It is when they transfer the medical over from parents to the grown child (adult)
and backside
pay close attention to the declaration.
especially the last line in the declaration.
that "declaration and consent" tells me that there is an Act that makes one exempt from paying income tax,
they also bring up a 'trust' by mentioning "beneficiary"
we sign this stuff when we are 19 years old and have no idea what is going on,
i got a friend to stop signing income tax return forms and he did and his return goes through fine,
might be 5 years know of him doing it.
You are apparently in Canada, so I am not sure if you are talking about 1040 tax return or not. Internal Revenue Code Sec. 6065 requires returns to be signed under penalty of perjury. Federal courts have ruled that a return not signed is no return at all.
Notwithstanding the alleged success your friend has had, IRS could at any time decide his returns are not valid. Since you allege that he has done this for several years, his failure to sign would be obviously deliberate, and on that basis they could determine his returns to be frivolous ($5,000 fine for each return).
Not to presume any ill intent on your friend's part, but if he is avoiding signing the returns because of false information provided on the returns, he may be technically avoiding perjury. But IRS may be able to go after him for fraud or tax evasion, even if he did not sign the returns.
I have seen returns sent back by IRS simply because the signature was a photocopy and not a wet-ink signature. I have no personal experience with unsigned returns. Why bother filing at all if you are not going to sign the return? If you are giving honest information then what is the harm in signing it? If you are not going to be honest, you would be better off not filing at all than to commit fraud or evasion by giving false information.
Have you read the notes under 26 USC 6065? "Amendments: 1976 Amendments. Pub.L. 94-455, § 1906(a)(6), struck out provisions relating to the authority of the Secretary or his delegate to require that any return, statement, or other document to be made under provision of the internal revenue laws or regulations shall be verified by an oath." I would agree that due to non disclosure one can alter the contractual nature of the W-4 or the W-9, but not under the Brady Doctrine which is about waiving a constitutional right. It's about forming an intent to attain purposeful availment. You cannot form an intent without full disclosure of all the benefits and detriments of what you are signing. You can pretty much say that about any form gov. has for you to sign.
Last edited by Goldi; 07-13-13 at 02:48 PM.
I have not seen the notes under 26 USC Sec. 6065. I believe this amendment would have effect only for those who come under the purview of the publicly enacted revenue laws. Amendments of the publicly enacted law do not have any effect for those bound contractually by the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. The code itself IS the law for those bound by it contractually. Regardless of this amendment to 6065 you refer to, the code itself still requires a return to be signed (for those presumed to be contractually bound).
Btw, is signing a return and declaring the contents to be true and correct under penalties of perjury the same as being verified "by an oath"? Isn't it just an affirmation of correctness of the information?
If your position is that no one is required to sign a tax return, this does not jibe with decisions of federal courts declaring an unsigned return to be a legal nullity (understanding that in such cases the taxpayer is probably presumed to be contractually bound).
Re: Brady Doctrine: I invoke Brady based on the right to labor for compensation tax-free per Supreme Court in Butchers Union v. Crescent City and Coppage v. Kansas, which is being presumed to be waived by signing the W-4 or W-9. This right to tax free compensation for labor is included in the constitutional right not to be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law, secured by the 5th Amendment, and the right against involuntary servitude, secured by the 13th Amendment. I agree with you 100% about disclosure being required to form an intent. As such disclosure is not made with W-4 and W-9, you have impermissible unknowing waivers of those constitutional rights per Brady, as well as failure to form a contract.
Last edited by ManOntheLand; 07-14-13 at 02:13 AM.
Man on the Land gets it, few do.
Lets look at the presumptions that no doubt were never challenged from the indictment.
1. DOREEN M. HENDRICKSON ("HENDRICKSON") was a resident of Commerce
Township, Michigan.
First is the woman known as Doreen Hendrickson or DOREEN HENDRICSON?
Second is the woman a "resident" of Commerce Township? I dont understand what those terms mean, i am going to need an admission that they mean.....
As Man-on-the-Land states appearance according to the court rules nullifys a challenge to jurisdiction. Is that true? Do rules of court count as law? Did a legislative body enact said law? Do rules apply to me?
There are so many frauds upon the court in any complaint or hearing minutes that its hard to mention them all.
The named party and post location will always be false and are used to establish jurisdiction. There will usually be a SSN or Drivers license number named on minutes EVEN THOUGH it was never produced as evidence or testified to so that is hearsay and inadmissable.
"I am John Doe, a Common-law-free-man, here under protest, by special appearance to challenge jurisdiction and service of process only in this court-of-record."
do you have a 21 silver dollar bond on file showing your not a pauper under the articles of confederation? Did you put an affidavit of corporate denial, statement of status, who you are and who you are not into the record as a plea in abatement? We can only guess what law they are opperating under because they will never openly state it. IS it Common-law, Equity, Maritime or Admiralty or some unConstitutional form of law? Whats a $?
Contempt is an abomination to the Consitution. The only reason for Contempt is when someone refuses to do what a jury sentences you to do. It's not contempt to ignore a judge cause unless you consent to having him make a judicial determination he cant do it under the Constitution. You cannot go to jail for peonage (owning a debt) so if you don't pay the IRS you cannot be sent to jail. So they got aroung that by making rules of court (not enacted law) that you can go to jail for any reason the judge decides is good enough. You can only do time for committing a crime and a crime by definition is an injury or loss to another man (not the State).
Doreen's case has gone to the jury.
Blessed is he who keeps from stumbling over me.
The verdict is in, 11 for slavery, 1 for freedom. Thank God for jury nullification.
Blessed is he who keeps from stumbling over me.
This is an excellent overview of the real issues in Doreen's trail.
Blessed is he who keeps from stumbling over me.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote