Supporting Schedule for the 1040 Form

[gdude]

[QUOTE=Why would you sign the 1040 form under penalty of perjury? QUOTE]

As Far as I know...You do not sign any IRS form under "penalty of perjury", but "PENALTIES (plural) of perjury".

So, who can be charged with more than one count of perjury? Federal employee or agent of public office.
You get charged with penalty of perjury, PLUS you lose your position and pension. A civilian can only be charged once

Signing any IRS form provides the prima facie evidence they need that you, are indeed, a federal employee or a public office.

I, personally, will not provide prima facie that I am a statutory "employee", "employer", and earn statutory "wages".

[Freed Gerdes]

Bentley, what is the significance of the links you provided? Does the Treasury have some greater need for the letters IRS, and now refuses to allow the 'entity' to call itself the Internal Revenue Service? They did not assign a new name, so TO 150-06 looks near meaningless to me. I see the intent of the Mint not wanting fraudsters to misuse the Treasury seal, but it is unlikely that Treasury would punish the IRS for continuing to call themselves that name. So I fail to see how the citations you provide involve entrapping the general public. There are a lot of fraudulent things going on at the IRS, but the use of their form is pretty much mandatory; likewise failing to sign the form constitutes an invalid return. But you were entrapped when you signed a W-4; you authorized the 'voluntary' withholding of taxes {as if they were owed}, and now you have to file a return to get a refund (and the IRS will hound you if they show you having a W-4 and you don't file). So the form, the signature, the perjury, the fraud, all that is immaterial if you don't make your demand for lawful money at the time you cash/deposit your paychecks. If you do make your demand, then you don't owe the income tax, and there is no perjury in making your refund claim. Likewise, gdude, the signature on the form completes the contract, making it enforceable in court, but if you signed a W-4 you have already agreed to be an employee. Then you still need to file a return to get your refund.

[David Merrill]

Bentley, what is the significance of the links you provided? Does the Treasury have some greater need for the letters IRS, and now refuses to allow the 'entity' to call itself the Internal Revenue Service? They did not assign a new name, so TO 150-06 looks near meaningless to me. I see the intent of the Mint not wanting fraudsters to misuse the Treasury seal, but it is unlikely that Treasury would punish the IRS for continuing to call themselves that name. So I fail to see how the citations you provide involve entrapping the general public. There are a lot of fraudulent things going on at the IRS, but the use of their form is pretty much mandatory; likewise failing to sign the form constitutes an invalid return. But you were entrapped when you signed a W-4; you authorized the 'voluntary' withholding of taxes {as if they were owed}, and now you have to file a return to get a refund (and the IRS will hound you if they show you having a W-4 and you don't file). So the form, the signature, the perjury, the fraud, all that is immaterial if you don't make your demand for lawful money at the time you cash/deposit your paychecks. If you do make your demand, then you don't owe the income tax, and there is no perjury in making your refund claim. Likewise, gdude, the signature on the form completes the contract, making it enforceable in court, but if you signed a W-4 you have already agreed to be an employee. Then you still need to file a return to get your refund.

I should add that if you have major clients (comprising an "employer") then the IRS might assess you independently by 1099 Information. Therefore if you are a contractor "self-employed" there is an advantage to filing to avoid the presumption of a tax liability.

[Bentley]

[QUOTE=gdude;10473]

As Far as I know...You do not sign any IRS form under "penalty of perjury", but "PENALTIES (plural) of perjury".

So, who can be charged with more than one count of perjury? Federal employee or agent of public office.
You get charged with penalty of perjury, PLUS you lose your position and pension. A civilian can only be charged once

Signing any IRS form provides the prima facie evidence they need that you, are indeed, a federal employee or a public office.

I, personally, will not provide prima facie that I am a statutory "employee", "employer", and earn statutory "wages".

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1746

Bentley

[Bentley]

http://www.treasury.gov/about/role-of-treasury/orders-directives/Pages/to150-06.aspx

and violates Title 31 section 333 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/333

Bentley

[doug555]

It seems to me that you guys (David and Doug) are going for some overkill here. The demand must be made at a Federal Reserve bank, as we have agreed that the action begins with the transaction in which the FR tries to get you to endorse their private money. Your refusal to endorse their private credit is the step that takes the transaction out of the purview of Title 26, as it is now conducted in public money, which cannot be taxed by a private corporation. Your endorsement is the adhesion contract, so you must make the demand at (or before) the transaction occurs. I doubt the IRS needs a copy of anything involving Title 12. And since you sign the 1040 under penalty of perjury, it would seem that all you need is to tell them that you used lawful money for some (all) transactions, list or identify those in some clear fashion, and ask for your refund. As Treefarmer reports, the IRS has a tendency to not hear you unless you speak in District Court, so there is obvious value in keeping an evidence repository there, but in keeping with your right to be a court of record yourself, merely letting the IRS know that you have good records should be sufficient. We will see, as I just mailed off my 1040, on which I stated that all transactions with two banks that occurred after I noticed them by certified letter were conducted in lawful money, and are identified for their convenience, but not reported as income on the return. The actual demand, filed and certified by the County Clerk of Deeds, and the letters of notice, and the return receipts for those notice letters, are all still held in my personal files. Citizens should not have to use the District courts to negotiate their business relationship with the IRS.

I just read this again, and I agree with you Freed (see highlighted above) - K.I.S.S.

So this year (BTW: it has worked the last 2 years - Thanks David!), I will upload PDF copies of my checks and deposit slips with "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)" handwritten on the FACE of them to a free Google internet folder, and share and put that gDrive URL link on my Support Schedule for 1040 as proof of my demands. I will include check showing the date I started the demand, and copies of some for current tax year to provide a basis for "preponderance of evidence" rule.

If the IRS wants to check them, they can just click on the link in the Schedule.

I will also upload copies of 12 USC 411, 95a(2), with relevant statements underlined, for their edification, and to rebut their "plausible deniability" of their law. Any refusal of the remedy by them would show deliberate intent to deny a right, and would be the basis for a Claim of Harm.

My Rationale folder contains additional material supporting this remedy, which you may also cite.

[salsero]

I see from this example that there is a 1099-Misc listed and it appears the total amount was redeemed in lawful money and thus, has been taken on line 21 as a reduction on form 1040. USUALLY 1099-Misc requires a Schedule C and Schedule SE for the SS and Medicare taxes. My question is did this suitor simply by-pass the Schedule C and Schedule SE by placing this line 21 [this would not make sense since he would need to show the income in order to receive the deduction] OR, as I am guessing this, he put the income on Schedule C showing income on L12 and did Schedule SE and in the "other taxes" section INCLUDED the SS and Medicare taxes and he paid them? In other words, Did he pay the 15.3% FICA taxes regardless of the LM reduction [presuming he had no tax liability on L46]?

L21 is a reduction of taxes. L56 is after the tax liability and these are additional taxes due and have nothing to do with anything above L46.

I also do not understand how anything but the net pay after all deductions were taken as LM since the employer held the FIT, Med, SC, SS and it is not likely the employer submitted said tax withholdings as LM? I see the next comment brings this matter up. How did this suitor wind up?

Something does not seem correct. If I am missing something, please forgive me and provide an answer. thanks

[salsero]

Reply to 1st post on Supplemental Schedule for Line 21

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

Forgive me I thought I replied to this attaching the supplemental schedule for Line 21. I am still navigating this site.

I see from this example that there is a 1099-Misc listed and it appears the total amount was redeemed in lawful money and thus, has been taken on line 21 as a reduction on form 1040. USUALLY 1099-Misc requires a Schedule C and Schedule SE for the SS and Medicare taxes. My question is did this suitor simply by-pass the Schedule C and Schedule SE by placing this line 21 [this would not make sense since he would need to show the income in order to receive the deduction] OR, as I am guessing this, he put the income on Schedule C showing income on L12 and did Schedule SE and in the "other taxes" section INCLUDED the SS and Medicare taxes and he paid them? In other words, Did he pay the 15.3% FICA taxes regardless of the LM reduction [presuming he had no tax liability on L46]?

L21 is a reduction of taxes. L56 is after the tax liability and these are additional taxes due and have nothing to do with anything above L46.

I also do not understand how anything but the net pay after all deductions were taken as LM since the employer held the FIT, Med, SC, SS and it is not likely the employer submitted said tax withholdings as LM? I see the next comment brings this matter up. How did this suitor wind up?

Something does not seem correct. If I am missing something, please forgive me and provide an answer. thanks

[doug555]

See posts below:

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?869-Make-Demand-At-Treasury&p=11358&viewfull=1#post11358

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?869-Make-Demand-At-Treasury&p=11372&viewfull=1#post11372

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?795-Resistance-and-Refusal-by-Banks&p=12168&viewfull=1#post12168

[salsero]

See posts below:

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?869-Make-Demand-At-Treasury&p=11358&viewfull=1#post11358

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?869-Make-Demand-At-Treasury&p=11372&viewfull=1#post11372

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...ll=1#post12168

Thank you - but I am not sure I understand exactly. In essence, it is transaction based, if I get what you are answering. My question had to with additional tax liability due regardless of L21

I see your response "However, the MAIN point I am trying to make, and which your LM/FRN transaction scenarios above support, is that both the FRN-based Debt and the USN-based Reduction are TRANSACTION-BASED! This is WHY the 1040 Supporting Schedule for Lawful Money Demand Reduction has to include the Withholding transactions - to reverse these corresponding unauthorized and un-bonded debt transactions"

But this does not address the L56. Sorry if I am not understanding.

As far as the W-2, you have answered this in the above. But honestly, even if you do the declaration of life and the 411, 95a - I do see an issue. But this has to do with who is liable to discharge and acquit the "person". If I am doing the 411, then adding 95a to all transactions, I see this as a problem. But that is for another topic of conversation.

Basically, if you can answer directly the Schedule SE issue and L56, I would appreciate it. thanks

[doug555]

Thank you - but I am not sure I understand exactly. In essence, it is transaction based, if I get what you are answering. My question had to with additional tax liability due regardless of L21

I see your response "However, the MAIN point I am trying to make, and which your LM/FRN transaction scenarios above support, is that both the FRN-based Debt and the USN-based Reduction are TRANSACTION-BASED! This is WHY the 1040 Supporting Schedule for Lawful Money Demand Reduction has to include the Withholding transactions - to reverse these corresponding unauthorized and un-bonded debt transactions"

But this does not address the L56. Sorry if I am not understanding.

As far as the W-2, you have answered this in the above. But honestly, even if you do the declaration of life and the 411, 95a - I do see an issue. But this has to do with who is liable to discharge and acquit the "person". If I am doing the 411, then adding 95a to all transactions, I see this as a problem. But that is for another topic of conversation.

Basically, if you can answer directly the Schedule SE issue and L56, I would appreciate it. thanks

Yes, this does need clarification.

There was a Schedule C and its Line 31 tax amount was placed on line 12 of 1040.

And, if there was self-employment income, there would also be a Schedule SE and its Line 5 tax amount would be placed on line 56 of 1040.

Remember, every TRANSACTION in FRN's provides them an opportunity fractionalize/monetize because it is presumed to be debt money, which delays the payment, which is a dishonor and a sin. Said sin allows them to put you in Satan's camp, and therefore "taxable". IMO

But we nullify said presumption of the use of FRN's every year via the 1040. And we must include every transaction (gross, each withholding, and each 1099) in order to properly back out each of these presumed FRN delay of payments.

That ends our responsibility. They must handle all of the accounting, and the reverse journal entries to "de-fractionalization" everything (which I doubt they do). Again, IMO.

Remember, 12 USC 411 is worded to only allow "redemption", not "prevention", of FRN's! This is a very subtle, but an important point of view regarding how we can maintain our peace with their system, in the spirit of Mt 13:30 and the Creator's "red line" declared in Mt 22:21.

[salsero]

Until such time that I am able to have a proper fiduciary administrate the estate, trust, ens legis Person, I USE, I want to remain in honor with the system, as I do not want to "war" against the foreign occupancy of the foreign state under a state of emergency situation that this country now faces due to the bankruptcy.

I am working on the Release of Claim and Interest of that Person, I USE, where the State, as usufructary has the duty and obligation to acquit and discharge all matters relating to the State's property. Since it appears everything has already been "seized or transferred, conveyed, PAID for, delivered property or INTEREST therein, one would think those proper fiduciaries would somehow located in the phone book - LOL.

Anyway, may I ask the group's opinion, based upon your response Doug, "That ends our responsibility. They must handle all of the accounting, and the reverse journal entries to "de-fractionalization" everything (which I doubt they do). Again, IMO", do you think it wise to write our brother Danny [Werfel] directly and ask him how this should handle this OR do you think this will open up a can of worms? As I see it, there can be no assessment of FF penalty and though it is NOT likely there will be a response, it is a matter of making a record of sincere willingness to follow THEIR PRIVATE laws so as NOT to war against the State.

Just a little FYI, I had to re-do the bank signature card and I had put the notation - ALL TRANSACTIONS ... 12 USC 411 ,, NUNC PRO TUNC. I got the actual signature card notarized AND a statement attached -- This has been recorded in their public records. I have been "non-endorsing" FRN for that PERSON, I USE a few years now, but have done nothing per IRS as that ENS LEGIS, I USE did not "earn" enough $$ to pay taxes anyway.

One other comment, SHOULD that proper fiduciary step up to the plate and administrate that estate, I USE, I believe it wise to move past INTERMEDDLING with the estate in any manner without the explicit consent AND instruction of that trustee, this would include "non-endorsing" FRN. This would be up to the trustee to deal with and not just us mere men, as their system has nothing to do with us.

I hope there are some real good comments on this post

[createvalue9]

The supporting schedule says see confirming checks and deposit slips. Do you really send all paycheck copies to the IRS with this form and the 1040. It seems to me that would be a rather large letter to send for taxes.

[createvalue9]

I didn't see my last post from 11:05pm. This post can be removed. Please answer the question above. Do you really send all paycheck copies to the IRS with this form and the 1040?

[doug555]

The supporting schedule says see confirming checks and deposit slips. Do you really send all paycheck copies to the IRS with this form and the 1040. It seems to me that would be a rather large letter to send for taxes.

You may send a significant sample... or just scan and upload them all to a free web drive account, share that folder, and then reference that web folder's URL in the Schedule so that the IRS can view them at their convenience for verification of your substantive evidence.

For example, using TaxACT.com 1040 application, the cite would appear as below:




Another such free web drive is http://hugedrive.com/

Just search for "free web drive account" to find others.