IRS inquiry: Do incorrect 1099s need rebuttal?

[ManOntheLand]

I agree that establishing foreign status is vital, especially if "you" are already identified in their system as a "U.S. citizen" or "resident alien" which one presumably is if you ever applied for a SS Card (see 26 CFR 301.6109-1(g): "A social security number is generally identified in the records and database of the Internal Revenue Service as a number belonging to a U.S. citizen or resident alien individual.)

In 26 CFR 301.6109-1(g)(2) it is acknowledged that a SSN can "belong to" a non-resident alien.

According to this provision of 26 CFR, once you have been identified as a U.S. person or foreign person in the records and database of IRS, they will presume that status permanently "until the circumstances change". It also says if your status changes, you must notify the IRS of the change "under such procedures" as the IRS "shall prescribe".

I am not sure what procedure has been "prescribed" exactly. I can tell you that when I stopped filing 1040 with my usual IRS service center and instead filed a 1040NR with the Austin, Texas IRS center, they apparently accepted my foreign status and updated their records (at least for that year).

To be on the safe side, I assume I will need to rebut "U.S. person" status in terms of the IRS database every time a third party sends out a W-2 with my SSN because such form indicates at least an election to be treated as a "U.S. person". I have to make it clear to them that I did NOT voluntarily furnish a SSN or elect to be treated as U.S. citizen or resident (but was coerced into doing so by the employer). Otherwise the IRS may presume my circumstances have changed, and place my SSN back into "U.S. person" status in their database.

With a 1099, I would think that the SSN status is not affected, since it does not necessarily presuppose I am a "U.S. person". But I still have to contest that I had "effectively connected" income if I believe it was NOT effectively connected and do not want it to be treated as taxable on that basis.

I did not, however, go to the IRS with this matter (because, who are they?) Instead I went to the Dept. of State (who handles all matters of citizenship) via a U.S. embassy (who may take citizenship declarations). I told them to inform all their alphabet agencies of my correct status, as it has always been.


The fact that you went to that effort definitely speaks to the sincerity of your belief in your position. But I don't think that will help you for tax purposes, as they treat a U.S. citizen and "U.S. resident alien" basically the same. Given the rules prescribed in 26 CFR, it is probably necessary for you to also communicate your status directly to IRS, unless you want them to presume "U.S. person" status for your SSN. Their false presumptions are where all the hassles begin.

For anyone wondering why this matters: a U.S. Citizen or resident is taxed on his worldwide income--it does not matter where your income came from. A non-resident alien is taxed only on income "effectively connected with a trade or business in the U.S." Of course you have to know what the terms "U.S. citizen" "resident" and "trade or business" really mean for any of that to do you any good. Most Americans assume they are "U.S. citizens", and even some who have figured out they are not will still call themselves "U.S. residents". The widespread ignorance of the meanings of these terms helps keep the myth alive that all Americans are taxed simply for making money.

What citizenship status does "your" IMF show?

Its not a citizenship status per se, since they treat a U.S. citizen and U.S. resident (alien) the same for tax purposes. It is a mail/filing requirement code, which tells them what form they are required to mail to you and what form you are required to file. This code could indicate that a 1040 is required, a 1040NR or even no requirement to file anything.

According to the IRS 6209 manual, the MFR code they have in "my" IMF Specific for 2007 corresponds to a 1040NR non-resident alien return.

Incidentally, there is also a VAL code in the IMF, with a digit of 1 indicating the SSN is "not valid for the person using it", per the 6209 manual. My IMF for 2007 has a VAL-1 code. Apparently most of us have VAL-1 codes in our IMF. Perhaps an indicator that the system treats us as illegal imposters?

In my experience and research, non-resident alien status for Americans seems to be something Auntie will quietly acknowledge but does not want to talk about: I think that is because it makes more clear the jurisdictional aspect of federal income tax. Auntie prefers we all believe the myth of a direct tax on all Americans without apportionment.

[ManOntheLand]

Jethro, somehow I got some of my replies mixed up with your quote and sadly I am not savvy enough to know how to fix it. Sorry, I am not trying to put words in your mouth! But check out the middle of the quoted section for my replies.

here they are again, extracted from my quote of what you said in your post:

In 26 CFR 301.6109-1(g)(2) it is acknowledged that a SSN can "belong to" a non-resident alien.

According to this provision of 26 CFR, once you have been identified as a U.S. person or foreign person in the records and database of IRS, they will presume that status permanently "until the circumstances change". It also says if your status changes, you must notify the IRS of the change "under such procedures" as the IRS "shall prescribe".

I am not sure what procedure has been "prescribed" exactly. I can tell you that when I stopped filing 1040 with my usual IRS service center and instead filed a 1040NR with the Austin, Texas IRS center, they apparently accepted my foreign status and updated their records (at least for that year).

To be on the safe side, I assume I will need to rebut "U.S. person" status in terms of the IRS database every time a third party sends out a W-2 with my SSN because such form indicates at least an election to be treated as a "U.S. person". I have to make it clear to them that I did NOT voluntarily furnish a SSN or elect to be treated as U.S. citizen or resident (but was coerced into doing so by the employer). Otherwise the IRS may presume my circumstances have changed, and place my SSN back into "U.S. person" status in their database.

With a 1099, I would think that the SSN status is not affected, since it does not necessarily presuppose I am a "U.S. person". But I still have to contest that I had "effectively connected" income if I believe it was NOT effectively connected and do not want it to be treated as taxable on that basis.

The fact that you went to that effort (going to State Dept.) definitely speaks to the sincerity of your belief in your position. But I don't think that will help you for tax purposes, as they treat a U.S. citizen and "U.S. resident alien" basically the same. Given the rules prescribed in 26 CFR, it is probably necessary for you to also communicate your status directly to IRS, unless you want them to presume "U.S. person" status for your SSN. Their false presumptions are where all the hassles begin.

For anyone wondering why this matters: a U.S. Citizen or resident is taxed on his worldwide income--it does not matter where your income came from. A non-resident alien is taxed only on income "effectively connected with a trade or business in the U.S." Of course you have to know what the terms "U.S. citizen" "resident" and "trade or business" really mean for any of that to do you any good. Most Americans assume they are "U.S. citizens", and even some who have figured out they are not will still call themselves "U.S. residents". The widespread ignorance of the meanings of these terms helps keep the myth alive that all Americans are taxed simply for making money.

[Anthony Joseph]

I like and agree with David's post.

I did NOT tell my employer anything, or notify the bank.

Just writing "lawful money is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411" on all checks and deposits slips was enough "substantive evidence" for me for the past 2 years to get refunds, via principal/agent doctrine and Federal Rules of Evidence 803 (6).

YOU are the one that determines whose "image" you are using on the "money" (FRN vs USN), NOT the employer, in accord with Mt 22:19-21. I believe this taxation account defines the "red line" that the Creator will not let Satan violate, much like the line drawn for Satan in his dealings with Job. This "red line" is 12 USC 411.

Satan learned this "red line" lesson well from violating the Creator's "title" to His People in Egypt, resulting in the Exodus and the setting up of the "Holy Nation"... a matter promised to be repeated today in the supernatural fulfillment Holydays #2 and #3.

I am now adding "full discharge is demanded 12 USC 95a(2)" as well (the insurance policy for the transaction) on bills that are turned into money orders, in preparation for a Tort claim if the obligation is not discharged, in accord with Ex 3:7-22.

Douglas Raymond

A great approach Douglas Raymond.

I believe that exercising the available remedy from all obligation and liability for the NAME requires both 12USC411 and 12USC95a(2). The reason for this belief is that demanding lawful money alone doesn't include assignment of all interest; it removes the first lien from the foreign Federal Reserve Bank but it does not address whether or not we are still making adverse claims of ownership in the NAME.

This is where 12USC95a comes in. I believe that a Notice of Assignment - a formal acknowledgment of what is already true - should be executed for the record. It should be presented to the Secretary of the Treasury along with verbiage which demonstrates one's pledge to each other of: one's life, one's fortune and one's sacred honor as did the original signors of the Declaration. This is the consideration offered for use of the NAME in the public realm with full indemnity. Any and all use, whether it be debits or credits, benefits the United States public trust - we neither gain nor reserve any interest of anything in the NAME. All use benefits the public trust. We only exercise our interest in the beneficial use as protected purchaser by agreement - our pledge in exchange for use.

Since all title and property has been seized and all money has been appropriated by the United States via the occupying military force, the peaceful inhabitants must be provided for since the ability to own or pay has been removed - a breach of the U.S. Constitutional guarantee under Article 1 Section 10 impairing the obligation of contracts. 12USC95a(2) is the remedy and "new contract" in order for the United States to remain absent culpability of said Constitutional breach creating involuntary servitude.

Once enough time has passed, the Notice of Assignment stands as accepted and acknowledged - unless they choose to proactively deny remedy and subvert the code which is binding upon public officials. One then notifies the Comptroller of the Currency of the acceptance and acknowledgment of assignment and requests the available alternative to FRNs so as to satisfy all bills, charges and requests for payments in the NAME. Since we are no longer participating as belligerents in the ongoing commercial warfare being waged, an alternative manner and method to operate in the public realm must be provided to those who choose to minister to the public trust peacefully and assist the wounded and injured on the "battlefield" of commerce.

[ManOntheLand]

A return is required if I have income above the statutory exemption amount, yes. But I believe these restrictively endorsed checks are not income under the Revenue Acts of Congress. Therefore if I have no statutory income and nothing is withheld from my pay there is no need to file.

You appear to assume the income is what is being taxed. Not so. Income tax is a tax on an activity, measured by the amount of income involved. Restrictively endorsing your paycheck avoids the nexus of bonding FRN's into fractional reserve lending. But when the employer paid you, the transfer of the amount you were paid is a taxable activity to the employer as an excise based on (presumed) federally connected corporate privilege and therefore "income." Your contribution to FICA from your paycheck is another taxable activity, as it is a privilege/benefit to participate in this program, therefore the amount you were paid is "income". Further, the transfer to you of the payment from the employer is a taxable activity of receiving a gain from (presumed) federally privileged "employment". All of these nexuses of taxation make the amounts involved "gross income" before you take your check to the bank.

The FICA is just a ruse of course--its just another income tax, but it is masquerading as an insurance account "for you", so the real tax rate you are paying is obscured. But it all goes to the same place.

If you get 1099 and not a W-2, there is no employment nexus or FICA nexus. But there is another nexus--engaging in a "trade or business within the United States". You are taxed only on "profit" though not gross receipts. Profit or gain is how the Supreme Court defined "income". What they did not spell out clearly is the jurisdictional nexus which must be present (or presumed) for federal taxation. This is because it is presumed you know whether or not you belong in a given jurisdiction--especially federal, as its jurisdiction in the 50 states is exclusively subject matter jurisdiction, based on either the enumerated powers or a contract.

You may have a presumed requirement to file based on any third party reporting that you received above the minimum gross income. This reporting will be presumed correct if you do not make a rebuttal.

[doug555]

A great approach Douglas Raymond.

I believe that exercising the available remedy from all obligation and liability for the NAME requires both 12USC411 and 12USC95a(2). The reason for this belief is that demanding lawful money alone doesn't include assignment of all interest; it removes the first lien from the foreign Federal Reserve Bank but it does not address whether or not we are still making adverse claims of ownership in the NAME.

This is where 12USC95a comes in. I believe that a Notice of Assignment - a formal acknowledgment of what is already true - should be executed for the record. It should be presented to the Secretary of the Treasury along with verbiage which demonstrates one's pledge to each other of: one's life, one's fortune and one's sacred honor as did the original signors of the Declaration. This is the consideration offered for use of the NAME in the public realm with full indemnity. Any and all use, whether it be debits or credits, benefits the United States public trust - we neither gain nor reserve any interest of anything in the NAME. All use benefits the public trust. We only exercise our interest in the beneficial use as protected purchaser by agreement - our pledge in exchange for use.

Since all title and property has been seized and all money has been appropriated by the United States via the occupying military force, the peaceful inhabitants must be provided for since the ability to own or pay has been removed - a breach of the U.S. Constitutional guarantee under Article 1 Section 10 impairing the obligation of contracts. 12USC95a(2) is the remedy and "new contract" in order for the United States to remain absent culpability of said Constitutional breach creating involuntary servitude.

Once enough time has passed, the Notice of Assignment stands as accepted and acknowledged - unless they choose to proactively deny remedy and subvert the code which is binding upon public officials. One then notifies the Comptroller of the Currency of the acceptance and acknowledgment of assignment and requests the available alternative to FRNs so as to satisfy all bills, charges and requests for payments in the NAME. Since we are no longer participating as belligerents in the ongoing commercial warfare being waged, an alternative manner and method to operate in the public realm must be provided to those who choose to minister to the public trust peacefully and assist the wounded and injured on the "battlefield" of commerce.

Thanks Anthony Joseph... I really appreciate that! Below is more info for discussion...

For me, this interest is the equitable title to the reversionary interest of the labor value attached to INFANT since the birth event, as evidenced by the Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) of the INFANT.

The holder of this COLB must create a Proof of Life record to regain control of this equitable title from probate so that this reversionary interest can re-vestre-vesting must occur on the record BEFORE said interest can be legitimately re-assigned or transferred to anyone else.

Then a decision must be made whether said interest should be assigned:
1) PARTIALLY - on a recurring transaction basis using signed bill-money-order instruments as tender of payments, or
2) COMPLETELY - on a final closure basis by a formal Notice of Assignmentpartial assignments, consisting of turning all BILLS into MONEY ORDER INSTRUMENTS as tender of payments, signingon that one piece of paperfull discharge12 USC 95a(2).

Any refusal of these instruments invokes State enactments of UCC 3-603(b), which effectively makes the refusing holders thereof liable for said obligations, and at the same time fully discharges the INFANTS for same! A Tort Claim would demand a receipt as formal substantive evidence of this full discharge for the INFANT, under the laws that govern simple contracts (UCC 3-603(a)) for these tender of payments.

And indeed, these truly are PAYMENTS

[Jethro]

Jethro, somehow I got some of my replies mixed up with your quote and sadly I am not savvy enough to know how to fix it. Sorry, I am not trying to put words in your mouth! But check out the middle of the quoted section for my replies.

here they are again, extracted from my quote of what you said in your post:

In 26 CFR 301.6109-1(g)(2) it is acknowledged that a SSN can "belong to" a non-resident alien.

True, however 'that' "nonresident alien" is still considered to be a "taxpayer" - "any person subject to any internal revenue tax" - even though that person may have no "effectively connected income". I'm not of the exact implications of that status, but anything that would categorize me as a "person subject to any internal revenue tax" is something I would want to avoid.

According to this provision of 26 CFR, once you have been identified as a U.S. person or foreign person in the records and database of IRS, they will presume that status permanently "until the circumstances change". It also says if your status changes, you must notify the IRS of the change "under such procedures" as the IRS "shall prescribe".

I am not sure what procedure has been "prescribed" exactly.

Me neither, and they won't tell or give up a form. That reg says the form is one they "may specify". "May" = not mandatory, so it looks like they have opted not to create such a form. How convenient for them?

I can tell you that when I stopped filing 1040 with my usual IRS service center and instead filed a 1040NR with the Austin, Texas IRS center, they apparently accepted my foreign status and updated their records (at least for that year).

To be on the safe side, I assume I will need to rebut "U.S. person" status in terms of the IRS database every time a third party sends out a W-2 with my SSN because such form indicates at least an election to be treated as a "U.S. person". I have to make it clear to them that I did NOT voluntarily furnish a SSN or elect to be treated as U.S. citizen or resident (but was coerced into doing so by the employer).

That's one way of doing it - let me offer another...

When you initiate a "rebuttal" you will have to make statements, and in making those statements the burden of proof is entirely on you to substantiate them. Your rebuttal also presumes their authority in relation to you. However, they are the ones who are alleging you have some legal duty and obligation to perform some act ("file a return", "pay $500 zillion", etc.), so the burden ought to be 100% of them to substantiate their allegation. The best tool I have discovered to that end is utilizing the right of inquiry -- ask questions, don't make statements, in response to legal notices.

The fact that you went to that effort (going to State Dept.) definitely speaks to the sincerity of your belief in your position. But I don't think that will help you for tax purposes, as they treat a U.S. citizen and "U.S. resident alien" basically the same.

But it already has helped -- at least from what I have observed -- because now I have standing for my claim of status, and they can't rely on the excuse that they "didn't know" in the event they damage me. I also have admissible evidence of my status.

Given the rules prescribed in 26 CFR, it is probably necessary for you to also communicate your status directly to IRS, unless you want them to presume "U.S. person" status for your SSN. Their false presumptions are where all the hassles begin.

Agreed. However, I only ask questions in relationship to any presumptions they may have about me... "Who do you think I am?" "What's the evidence for your presumption?" "In what capacity do you believe I am acting?" "Where do you believe I am acting?", etc. This places the burden of proof 100% on them, as it should be.

For anyone wondering why this matters: a U.S. Citizen or resident is taxed on his worldwide income--it does not matter where your income came from. A non-resident alien is taxed only on income "effectively connected with a trade or business in the U.S." Of course you have to know what the terms "U.S. citizen" "resident" and "trade or business" really mean for any of that to do you any good. Most Americans assume they are "U.S. citizens", and even some who have figured out they are not will still call themselves "U.S. residents". The widespread ignorance of the meanings of these terms helps keep the myth alive that all Americans are taxed simply for making money.

Yes! Exactly.

[ManOntheLand]

Jethro: I agree with you about the "right of inquiry" in response to any notices sent by IRS and totally agree with the strategy of only asking questions in response to their notices. You have probably noticed they tend not to answer your questions!

However, when a W-2 gets sent out and I receive a copy, I tend to think the best defense is a good offense--i.e. if I go to IRS first to ask them to correct their records I sort of have the upper-hand because I can default them after a reasonable time (30 days) and obtain tacit agreement if they do not respond. I look better in the record, and perhaps pre-empt any letters coming from them asking why I did not file (I no longer file returns). I feel better dictating what happens rather than just reacting to them. And I don't feel that asking them to correct their records creates any presumption of authority over me. They are obligated to keep correct records and make corrections when errors are brought to their attention. If they fail to correct their records I have a cause of action against them on that basis under the Administrative Procedures Act.

Avoiding the burden of proof whenever possible is a good approach, but I don't mind having the burden of proof to substantiate certain things, if I can easily meet that burden with a sworn statement, and I know they have little or no chance of coming up with any contrary evidence. I have no problem, for example, with substantiating that I did not voluntarily submit a SSN or elect to have my pay treated as "wages". My sworn statement to that effect serves as prima facie evidence that the W-2 is void, which is a "reasonable dispute" with the information return that requires them under IRC to obtain "reasonable and probative evidence" in addition to the info return itself if they want to treat it as true and correct. Think they will bother with all that? Not likely. In my experience their one and only tactic is to ignore what you send them and try to proceed as though they never got it.

[David Merrill]

You have probably noticed they tend not to answer your questions!

I think the problem is your perspective ManOnTheLand. It is about where you are coming from. Your story is very familiar to me and the disease is reflected through your story. Your story is the filter through which you both project and perceive. Same with me though; that is why I feel I relate so well. I see my story all over you.

I sense a desperation for you to convince everybody that the IRS is corrupt and it is backfiring here. People can sense the truth about the redemption model and see it in the Federal Reserve Act. In a way I hope you type fast so that you are not wasting a lot of your time too.

[Chex]

if I go to IRS first to ask them to correct their records I sort of have the upper-hand because I can default them after a reasonable time (30 days) and obtain tacit agreement if they do not respond. I look better in the record, and perhaps pre-empt any letters coming from them asking why I did not file (I no longer file returns). I feel better dictating what happens rather than just reacting to them. And I don't feel that asking them to correct their records creates any presumption of authority over me. They are obligated to keep correct records and make corrections when errors are brought to their attention. If they fail to correct their records I have a cause of action against them on that basis under the Administrative Procedures Act.

Avoiding the burden of proof whenever possible is a good approach, but I don't mind having the burden of proof to substantiate certain things, if I can easily meet that burden with a sworn statement, and I know they have little or no chance of coming up with any contrary evidence. I have no problem, for example, with substantiating that I did not voluntarily submit a SSN or elect to have my pay treated as "wages". My sworn statement to that effect serves as prima facie evidence that the W-2 is void, which is a "reasonable dispute" with the information return that requires them under IRC to obtain "reasonable and probative evidence" in addition to the info return itself if they want to treat it as true and correct. Think they will bother with all that? Not likely. In my experience their one and only tactic is to ignore what you send them and try to proceed as though they never got it.

Our approach As an independent trust grouphttp://www.blujay.com/item/Standard-...010400-2845109

Hilltop paradise was home to four generations: https://www.hudsonvalley.org/historic-sites/kykuit

[ManOntheLand]

David, I am not trying to make anybody doubt LMR. I am only trying to help improve the tactics used to make LMR work efficiently in dealing with IRS and to help people avoid missteps. Filing a 1040 and taking a deduction for LMR is unnecessarily exposing one to the risk of frivolous return hassles.

A better tactic might be to inquire in writing with IRS Chief Counsel BEFORE filing. They cannot penalize you for a letter making an inquiry! It is their stated mission to assist you in understanding your tax obligation. In such a letter you can state your position, that you believe LMR exempts you from tax and that you believe you have no filing requirement. Attach all your check copies etc. Let them tell you if they have any problem with your position ahead of time! If they say nothing, you could safely rely on their silence to justify not filing, or to file a statement or 1040 to claim a refund if you choose. They may even send you a determination letter that you are not required to file.

Having approached IRS before you file a LMR return, you could then rely on their response to defend against a frivolous return penalty if necessary. You would have a good case for an 843 abatement because you made a good faith effort not to file a frivolous return and relied on their agreement or tacit agreement with your position.

[David Merrill]

Having approached IRS before you file a LMR return...

Here is one way to explain it -

Appearance cures all defects in jurisdiction.

It is very blatant once you receive refunds with the IRS blessing, after wrapping your mind around the remedy. Your boss will appreciate you keeping this between you and the IRS.

I believe you are transposing CtC (Cracking the Code) and other doctrine on remedy. In other words why go to the IRS and ask approval for something Congress has already approved?

[ManOntheLand]

David, you seem to think that what I suggest is unnecessary. But what exactly would be the harm? Perhaps the suitors who have already been hit with frivolous penalties for taking a LMR deduction on a 1040 would have been better off to ask IRS (or Treasury or somebody in "authority" over tax matters) about it before they filed? If IRS had failed to express any problem with the LMR position in an inquiry letter, those filers could now use the IRS's own words or silence against the IRS to defend against the penalty and/or abate it. Perhaps even, God forbid, IRS might have had something instructive to say so that we might correct any errors (gasp!) that we may otherwise be making.

Speaking of those suitors who got hit with frivolous penalties (which you have mentioned in another post), let's not rationalize away their plight by referencing what they do for a living or how much they make or anything else. They used the remedy you describe, did they not? And IRS hit them with a penalty for filing a return taking a deduction for LMR, did they not? So IRS could do the same to anybody, obviously. And BTW they can do so even AFTER they have "given their blessing" by issuing the refund no matter how "blatant" an indicator of their purported "blessing" you feel the refund is. Ask any CTC graduate about post-refund audits and frivolous penalties. What makes you think IRS won't adopt a policy of penalizing every LMR tax return eventually? Isn't it wise to anticipate this and take that weapon away from them?

The only difference I can see with what I am suggesting vs. claiming an LMR deduction on a 1040 is that they cannot call an inquiry letter a "purported return" and threaten or impose frivolous penalties against it. And aren't you making an "appearance" and asking for IRS "approval" anyway when you file a 1040 and take a deduction for LMR?

Re: appearance and jurisdiction-- For those who have been filing a 1040 every year, you are already presumed to be in their "jurisdiction" or at least an implied contract through "course of dealing".

I agree, you don't need IRS "approval". I don't think they will even respond to the inquiry I am suggesting! But you can rely on their silence as tacit agreement, and use that against them if they decide to harass you at any point down the road.

What is the harm in creating a "record" of my good faith belief in my position and that I gave them an opportunity to "correct me if I am wrong"? It demonstrates humility and a teachable state of mind. "I think this is right, and here is why, but you are the experts, you tell me if I missed something." If they don't respond, they will know as well as I do that if they one day decide to try to accuse me of wrongdoing they will have a very uphill battle. Worst case scenario I could show a jury that I sought out a determination/any corrections from IRS, so they cannot claim I was "willfully ignorant" and that I chose my position solely for its convenient result that I don't have to pay "my fair share." You have to look at all this the way a jury of average Americans would. So that you will be too dangerous to put in front of a jury.

You have helped make me and many others aware of remedy and I give you all the credit in the world for that, but as Harvey Keitel says in Pulp Fiction, "let's not start sucking each other's dicks quite yet". There still may be some kinks to work out here.

All due respect, but I detect some Pete Hendrickson-esque arrogance in your attitude about remedy and a sense that one must not question your "gospel" on this forum lest one be suspected of being a "dis-info agent". I also think you place way too much stock in the issuance of refunds as proof of IRS "acceptance" of your "gospel", another Hendrickson trait.

This is not at all to say to say that I disagree with LMR. But remedy is not a religion. It is a process. Perfecting that process requires a culture of critique and error correction, and checking egos at the door. Do we want to just be right, or do we want to win too?

[David Merrill]

David, you seem to think that what I suggest is unnecessary. But what exactly would be the harm? Perhaps the suitors who have already been hit with frivolous penalties for taking a LMR deduction on a 1040 would have been better off to ask IRS (or Treasury or somebody in "authority" over tax matters) about it before they filed?

You go right ahead and do it - please post a scan of the request and response here if you would.

I do not suggest it for anybody looking to me for any suggestions exactly for the reason I said. I would not lead anybody into the illusion that the IRS has any authority outside the scope of contract with the Federal Reserve. The demand for lawful money ends the contract, overriding all the assumptions around having to work and earn a living.

I explained how the three suitors, of hundreds were obligated into the private credit endorsement system as all three of them were in the financial industry, and all earning six-figure salaries at that. It makes sense to me and so I have learned something new.

[ManOntheLand]

I am confused as to why you think there is any need to file if the contract is terminated by redeeming lawful money.

[David Merrill]

I am confused as to why you think there is any need to file if the contract is terminated by redeeming lawful money.

The suitor files for a refund of withholdings. When self-employed, to avoid the presumption of a liability based on 1099 reporting by clients.