Treasury Letter from 1984

[doug555]

Doug555, I contacted TaxACT and they told me they have a "Tax Audit Defense" package which is a 3rd-party tool. Is this synonymous with 'the Audit Protection package' you referred to?

IMM

Yes, that's it!

[ag maniac]

I found this one helpful as well. Lawful Income Tax Avoidance for the Qualified Wages and Salaries of Natural Persons by Richard C. DiMare

Hmmmm....I suspect JC wrote that review, Chex !!

[shikamaru]

I would tend to recommend getting hold of a Black's Law Dictionary, Bouvier's Law Dictionary, a Balllentine's Law Dictionary and an old 1800s Jacob Giles law dictionary online and consider that there are at least two English languages: 'common speak' and 'official'. Also the mindset of helping servants out or keeping them in line might be more fruitful and healthy than us/me vs them theater of war mindset. To be a good master might take some diligent study and rightly dividing of the word of truth.

A green contract law hornbook is a nice quite helpful start. I'd be sure to cover and the basics of contract formation, remedies and recourse, requirements for parties at the least. IMHO a book like this for only $5.96--is like free gold coins like forever. Consider that checks, promissory notes and bonds are types of contracts.

Good look on that Jacob Giles .

I typically call the two English languages: the vulgar tongue and the King's (Queen's) English.

[shikamaru]

Yes, I've read the book.
"The current income tax .. is an avoidable .. regulatory excise tax on the incoming transfer of Federal Reserve notes and workers are not informed that they have an alternative right to have their labor taxed as property under the Constitution's two Direct Tax Clauses."

and since there are no direct taxes in effect, this worker owes no income tax.

Direct taxes at the federal level has only been assessed on two objects: real estate and slaves.

Springer v. United States (1880).

[allodial]

Good look on that Jacob Giles .

I typically call the two English languages: the vulgar tongue and the King's (Queen's) English.

I must correct that: Giles Jacob. He was associated with one of the best law dictionaries evarr.

Related: A new law-dictionary: containing, the interpretation and definition of words and terms used in the law: and also the whole law, and the practice thereof, under all the heads and titles of the same (1739)

[JohnnyCash]

Direct taxes at the federal level has only been assessed on two objects: real estate and slaves.

I don't think so. Here's a direct tax from 1798. http://ctcwarrior.com/lawfuldirecttax.pdf

[shikamaru]

I don't think so. Here's a direct tax from 1798. http://ctcwarrior.com/lawfuldirecttax.pdf

It will thus be seen that whenever the government has imposed a tax which it recognized as a direct tax, it has never been applied to any objects but real estate and slaves.

SPRINGER v. U S, 102 U.S. 586 (1880)

[allodial]

It will thus be seen that whenever the government has imposed a tax which it recognized as a direct tax, it has never been applied to any objects but real estate and slaves.

Re: slave - perhaps see also employee, servant.

[itsmymoney]

Doug: 1040, Line 21 has "See Attached" on it right after its description. The TaxACT Program then create a separate schedule that has Lines 1 & 2 available for your use. See example below. The Line 21 amount will always have a preceding dash to indicate a negative amount of "Other income", and it should always be greater than your Gross Income amount, because of adding in the "withholding" transactions amounts that were legitimately presumed by the employer to be provided in the default FRN currency.

Doug, I'm starting to create my supporting schedule based on one of the example templates, but I'm confused. My schedule lays out every entry on the year-end payroll register (see below w/o amounts), with a corresponding column for any Lawful Money reduction as applicable to each (not shown below). If I may ask some questions to clear this up for me, please:

1) One Lawful Money reduction would be the total amount of all the deposits made in Lawful Money, correct? In my case this is virtually the same amount as the Net Pay (I missed literally one check - long story).

2) The Fed Withholding is your Gross Pay withheld towards a tax. However, if you redeemed all or virtually all of the Net Pay then the Fed Withholding is not applicable in that sense (a tax). So can some/all of Fed Withholding be added as an offset? See 3 below relative to this...

3) Regarding the text I bolded in your quote above, I believe you are saying that "Other Income" (in this simple example) would be (Net Pay + Fed Withholding). I believe you are saying that "Other Income" should be greater than 'Gross Pay'; or 'Adjusted Gross Income'? How can that be, with all the other non-redeemable deductions in play? Just not seeing it clearly yet.

Sorry for my confusion. This is my first-time RILM and I'm trying to comprehend it overall and relative to filling out the 1040. Any help or clarification is most appreciated.

Sincerely,

IMM

Payroll Register entries...
Gross Pay Regular
Gross Pay OT
Gross Pay Bonus
Net Pay
Fed Withholding Tax
SS Withholding Tax
Medicare Tax
State Withholding Tax

[doug555]

Doug, I'm starting to create my supporting schedule based on one of the example templates, but I'm confused. My schedule lays out every entry on the year-end payroll register (see below w/o amounts), with a corresponding column for any Lawful Money reduction as applicable to each (not shown below). If I may ask some questions to clear this up for me, please:

1) One Lawful Money reduction would be the total amount of all the deposits made in Lawful Money, correct? In my case this is virtually the same amount as the Net Pay (I missed literally one check - long story).

NO. All deposits are presumed to be in FRNs - the default currency. The main and primary LM reduction amount is all Gross pay received AFTER your first LM demand was made on the record.

2) The Fed Withholding is your Gross Pay withheld towards a tax. However, if you redeemed all or virtually all of the Net Pay then the Fed Withholding is not applicable in that sense (a tax). So can some/all of Fed Withholding be added as an offset? See 3 below relative to this...

NO. IMO, Net Pay is NOT a transaction to be counted, since Gross Pay to you already includes this amount. However, FITW is a transaction. As are the other withholdings.

3) Regarding the text I bolded in your quote above, I believe you are saying that "Other Income" (in this simple example) would be (Net Pay + Fed Withholding). I believe you are saying that "Other Income" should be greater than 'Gross Pay'; or 'Adjusted Gross Income'? How can that be, with all the other non-redeemable deductions in play? Just not seeing it clearly yet.

NO. Gross pay transaction + ALL withholding transactions... IF you made your LM demand as I instructed, which makes it (LM Demand) TRANSACTION-based.

Sorry for my confusion. This is my first-time RILM and I'm trying to comprehend it overall and relative to filling out the 1040. Any help or clarification is most appreciated.

I am sure others are confused too. Let's ALL get this right!

Sincerely,

IMM

Payroll Register entries...
Gross Pay Regular
Gross Pay OT
Gross Pay Bonus
Net Pay
Fed Withholding Tax
SS Withholding Tax
Medicare Tax
State Withholding Tax

See above comments.

There are no NET amounts in above Schedule.

All amounts are from Payroll Register in YTD amounts.

Column 1 minus column 2 = column 3, since the LM demand started about mid-September in this example.

[itsmymoney]

Doug, I'm starting to create my supporting schedule based on one of the example templates, but I'm confused. My schedule lays out every entry on the year-end payroll register (see below w/o amounts), with a corresponding column for any Lawful Money reduction as applicable to each (not shown below). If I may ask some questions to clear this up for me, please:

1) One Lawful Money reduction would be the total amount of all the deposits made in Lawful Money, correct? In my case this is virtually the same amount as the Net Pay (I missed literally one check - long story).

NO. All deposits are presumed to be in FRNs - the default currency. The main and primary LM reduction amount is all Gross pay received AFTER your first LM demand was made on the record.

IMM: I made a pseudo-transaction-based demand to the U.S. Treasury almost 2 years ago (before I started novating the paychecks/deposit slips with 12 USC 411). The letter denotes 'all events' (deposits/withdrawals/etc) are to be redeemed in lawful money in the same manner as your suggested 'all transactions' demand. I'm hoping this letter is commensurate with your method. However, the novation does not include 95a(2) on deposit slips/checks; just the 'standard redemption' language of USC 411. So when you say 'on the record', is the method I used above in accordance with this maxim? And if that is true, wouldn't my FIRST paycheck redeemed in Lawful Money for that given year be inclusive in the Gross Pay amount to be redeemed in Lawful Money?

2) The Fed Withholding is your Gross Pay withheld towards a tax. However, if you redeemed all or virtually all of the Net Pay then the Fed Withholding is not applicable in that sense (a tax). So can some/all of Fed Withholding be added as an offset? See 3 below relative to this...

NO. IMO, Net Pay is NOT a transaction to be counted, since Gross Pay to you already includes this amount. However, FITW is a transaction. As are the other withholdings.

IMM: So it's the Gross Pay that should be noted as paid in Lawful Money, based on the Lawful Money redemption evidence. Correct?

3) Regarding the text I bolded in your quote above, I believe you are saying that "Other Income" (in this simple example) would be (Net Pay + Fed Withholding). I believe you are saying that "Other Income" should be greater than 'Gross Pay'; or 'Adjusted Gross Income'? How can that be, with all the other non-redeemable deductions in play? Just not seeing it clearly yet.

NO. Gross pay transaction + ALL withholding transactions... IF you made your LM demand as I instructed, which makes it (LM Demand) TRANSACTION-based.

IMM: Ok, so you stated in an earlier post that FITW would be the only reimbursed withholding entry. However, it appears that the Employment Taxes are also to be taken as a Lawful Money deduction in the Schedule (as in the example - thank you for including that example for clarity!). So perhaps you are saying that IRS will determine that Employment Taxes are not to be refunded? But WE should include them as an amount to be included in the LM reduction on the 1040 via the Supporting Schedule, correct?

Sorry for my confusion. This is my first-time RILM and I'm trying to comprehend it overall and relative to filling out the 1040. Any help or clarification is most appreciated.

I am sure others are confused too. Let's ALL get this right!

Sincerely,

IMM

Payroll Register entries...
Gross Pay Regular
Gross Pay OT
Gross Pay Bonus
Net Pay
Fed Withholding Tax
SS Withholding Tax
Medicare Tax
State Withholding Tax

Doug, my replies are above in RED. Hopefully this round of replies will get me there. I want to get this right the first time. I get the overall concept and have been novating for almost 2 years now. It's the 1040 application of it that I'm wrestling with. I'm actually late-filing for 2013 in Lawful Money and then will do so for the upcoming TY 2014. Also wanted to say that your/the '1040reliefblogspot' content is excellent! Thanks for providing that. The education here is priceless. I want to get this right, understand it and then pass the knowledge on. Thank you, DM and all Suitors.

Most grateful,

IMM

[doug555]

IMM: I made a pseudo-transaction-based demand to the U.S. Treasury almost 2 years ago (before I started novating the paychecks/deposit slips with 12 USC 411). The letter denotes 'all events' (deposits/withdrawals/etc) are to be redeemed in lawful money in the same manner as your suggested 'all transactions' demand. I'm hoping this letter is commensurate with your method. However, the novation does not include 95a(2) on deposit slips/checks; just the 'standard redemption' language of USC 411. So when you say 'on the record', is the method I used above in accordance with this maxim? And if that is true, wouldn't my FIRST paycheck redeemed in Lawful Money for that given year be inclusive in the Gross Pay amount to be redeemed in Lawful Money?

IMO, a "letter" does not fit the Hearsay Rule Exception (6)(B).

IMM: So it's the Gross Pay that should be noted as paid in Lawful Money, based on the Lawful Money redemption evidence. Correct?

Nothing from the Corporations is "paid in Lawful Money". They all offer only FRNs. We must always redeem all of that after those transactions occur. IMO, that is what the annual 1040 "accounting" is for. Gross Pay must be demanded in lawful money -- NOT Net Pay. Do NOT also include Net Pay in your total... to me that would be "double-dipping" IMO.


IMM: Ok, so you stated in an earlier post that FITW would be the only reimbursed withholding entry. However, it appears that the Employment Taxes are also to be taken as a Lawful Money deduction in the Schedule (as in the example - thank you for including that example for clarity!). So perhaps you are saying that IRS will determine that Employment Taxes are not to be refunded? But WE should include them as an amount to be included in the LM reduction on the 1040 via the Supporting Schedule, correct?

YES. IMO, those Employment Taxes amounts were rightly presumed to be FRNs and should be redeemed. Don't you agree?

But you cannot expect a refund of that because you are contracting to get its benefit, aren't you?

If I am wrong on this, please, everyone on this blog, raise your objections.

Listen, if you do not understand this, you will be easy picking for anyone to come along and trap you into admitting you committed a "crime" when you actually didn't.

Just read George Orwell's 1984... 2+2=5. Right?

[itsmymoney]

IMM: I made a pseudo-transaction-based demand to the U.S. Treasury almost 2 years ago (before I started novating the paychecks/deposit slips with 12 USC 411). The letter denotes 'all events' (deposits/withdrawals/etc) are to be redeemed in lawful money in the same manner as your suggested 'all transactions' demand. I'm hoping this letter is commensurate with your method. However, the novation does not include 95a(2) on deposit slips/checks; just the 'standard redemption' language of USC 411. So when you say 'on the record', is the method I used above in accordance with this maxim? And if that is true, wouldn't my FIRST paycheck redeemed in Lawful Money for that given year be inclusive in the Gross Pay amount to be redeemed in Lawful Money?

IMO, a "letter" does not fit the Hearsay Rule Exception (6)(B).

IMM: That Hearsay Rule 803 (the 'not logic' behind it) is really confusing. Gee, go figure. Regardless, after re-reading my letter to the Treasury, there is no mention of 'All transactions' or 'All payments' made to me. It's more of, all 'Net Pay events' are to be redeemed in Lawful Money'. So that appears to be my first mistake of which I believe I can modify with another Demand letter stating the proper Demand language (whatever that may be - need to research examples to get it right - if you have links from other posts handy I'm all ears/eyes). So given this conundrum that it may be a slippery slope to ask for ALL FITW to be refunded w/o originally demanding ALL Gross Pay be RILM, I'm thinking I still may be able to claim a RILM reduction on the NET deposits. Do you agree? Bottom line: I don't want to ask for something that I can't feel comfortable backing up with almost empirical evidence. I've already been torched big-time by 'them'.


IMM: So it's the Gross Pay that should be noted as paid in Lawful Money, based on the Lawful Money redemption evidence. Correct?

Nothing from the Corporations is "paid in Lawful Money". They all offer only FRNs. We must always redeem all of that after those transactions occur. IMO, that is what the annual 1040 "accounting" is for. Gross Pay must be demanded in lawful money -- NOT Net Pay. Do NOT also include Net Pay in your total... to me that would be "double-dipping" IMO.

IMM: Got it. However, given my answer here in number 1 above i.e. regarding the pseudo-transaction-based Treasury demand letter where I basically made a Demand for 'Net Pay only' w/o realizing it, does the Schedule now change to only asking for the 'Net Pay' as a reduction? Not sure of what I can legally claim as a reduction. Like I said, rather play it safe than sorry. So if it's a 'partial reduction' based on 'Net Pay', so be it. Problem is that I have 2 years now of demanding Lawful Money for 'Net Pay only' transactions, if that's how it's being interpreted by 'them' based upon my Treasury Letter.

A secondary question about 'the paychecks/deposit slip amounts': If the proper Demand letter (RILM all transactions, i.e. starting with Gross Pay) was made, is there any calculating of the actual check amounts/deposits to be made regarding the Schedule? Or is that just evidence that ALL transactions were made in Lawful Money? In other words, the 'Net' amounts need not be computed in the actual Line 21 amount because THAT amount is a 'Gross Pay amount' (unless a partial Demand was made like mine, i.e. 'Net amounts' based on my ill-advised Treasury letter).

Thoughts welcome here.

IMM: Ok, so you stated in an earlier post that FITW would be the only reimbursed withholding entry. However, it appears that the Employment Taxes are also to be taken as a Lawful Money deduction in the Schedule (as in the example - thank you for including that example for clarity!). So perhaps you are saying that IRS will determine that Employment Taxes are not to be refunded? But WE should include them as an amount to be included in the LM reduction on the 1040 via the Supporting Schedule, correct?

YES. IMO, those Employment Taxes amounts were rightly presumed to be FRNs and should be redeemed. Don't you agree?

IMM: Yes. And because the Employment Tax amounts are ALSO being taxed based on Gross Pay (double-dipping for them), then if demand was made properly on Gross Pay then then the RILM deduction for Employment Tax amounts is valid. However, the 'federal privilege' of someday participating in those Employment benefits makes it an unavoidable tax (regardless of RILM). Do you agree with my explanation as it relates to yours, so to speak?

But you cannot expect a refund of that because you are contracting to get its benefit, aren't you?

IMM: Agree. I alluded to that in number 3 just above (i.e. 'contract', 'federal privilege' for SS/Med).

If I am wrong on this, please, everyone on this blog, raise your objections.

Listen, if you do not understand this, you will be easy picking for anyone to come along and trap you into admitting you committed a "crime" when you actually didn't.

Just read George Orwell's 1984... 2+2=5. Right?

IMM: I DO recognize that and I appreciate you reminding me of that fact. I suppose I should feel lucky that I've only had to pay enormous 6702 penalties instead of (like PH), going to jail. That's why I'm trying to get it right even if I have to ask for a partial reduction, given your thoughts and others regarding the answers/questions I posed just above.

Thanks again.

Doug, my replies again in RED above. Thank you for this back-and-forth. I think it's educational for all of us.

[David Neil]

As I will also be applying lawful money demand to this coming tax return, for the first time, I do appreciate the willingness to ask the question and Doug555's gracious offer of his experience and opinions on the proper course to take.

Wishing to all on this site, and our Nation; as we gather in strength to combat the national debt, a prosperous and happy New Year.

[David Merrill]

Thank you David Neil;


This is very exciting indeed, the immanent run on the Fed!