Patriots win again - 2013 lawful money tax filing

[Guest]

I've been a non-filer for many years, making & depositing lawful money (not FRNs), and thus no requirement to file, even though I do get these 1099-MISC reports. For example THIS ONE I received for TY2012 and never filed a return, no IRS issues afterward.

But then the quatlude gave me an idea. What's better than paying no tax & not filing? Yep, filing with spouse so family can get a bigger refund. So for TY2013 we made use of the PERSON, as secondary filer.

PRIMARY filer: $47k in W2 wages & $14k in pension/annuity. ($14k in redeemed lawful money)
SECONDARY filer: $48k in 1099-MISC income yet none entered on the 1040. (All $48k redeemed lawful money)
Total of $109k in reported income. Federal refund of $5k:

http://www.ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_victory.pdf

VICTORY?
From the experience of others, we see the IRS typically matching their database records to come back 6 to 8 months later with a letter inquiring about the reported "income" not being entered on the 1040 return (if it really was federal income). For example, here's the experience of David L. who received 1099 info reports for tax year 2010 yet didn't file a return at all, and the IRS inquired about his missing return in November (2nd inquiry actually) of the following year. It's now January 2015, 10 months after our filing, and not a peep from the IRS.

It's in this "mourning after" period that the CtC-method usually fails. HENDRICKSON shows little of what happens after filing his so-called "zero-income" return; the CP letters, garnishments, penalties & levies. In fact, it appears I am the only successful CtC Warrior over there.

Another confirmed victory for lawful money.

[David Merrill]

Thank you Johnny!


A suitor in trouble with Pete's CtC flew him in as a house guest. Then in the suitor's office he and I discussed Pete. Pete was apparently coming to the realization that there is an inviolate "right to be heard" principal in operation within the Voluntary Compliance administration of the US Income Tax.

This is why there are so many Refund checks and so many times they are recalled, after the IRS has a chance to assess the Return in light of 1099 information. Pete's CtC method never offers anybody any law with which to argue the reassessment. - Only some of the worn out and repeatedly defeated slogans that any attorney will be sanctioned for bringing up.

[doug555]

I've been a non-filer for many years, making & depositing lawful money (not FRNs), and thus no requirement to file, even though I do get these 1099-MISC reports. For example THIS ONE I received for TY2012 and never filed a return, no IRS issues afterward.

But then the quatlude gave me an idea. What's better than paying no tax & not filing? Yep, filing with spouse so family can get a bigger refund. So for TY2013 we made use of the PERSON, as secondary filer.

PRIMARY filer: $47k in W2 wages & $14k in pension/annuity. ($14k in redeemed lawful money)
SECONDARY filer: $48k in 1099-MISC income yet none entered on the 1040. (All $48k redeemed lawful money)
Total of $109k in reported income. Federal refund of $5k:

http://www.ctcwarrior.com/1040_2013_victory.pdf

VICTORY?
From the experience of others, we see the IRS typically matching their database records to come back 6 to 8 months later with a letter inquiring about the reported "income" not being entered on the 1040 return (if it really was federal income). For example, here's the experience of David L. who received 1099 info reports for tax year 2010 yet didn't file a return at all, and the IRS inquired about his missing return in November (2nd inquiry actually) of the following year. It's now January 2015, 10 months after our filing, and not a peep from the IRS.

It's in this "mourning after" period that the CtC-method usually fails. HENDRICKSON shows little of what happens after filing his so-called "zero-income" return; the CP letters, garnishments, penalties & levies. In fact, it appears I am the only successful CtC Warrior over there.

Another confirmed victory for lawful money.

Why didn't filer demand lawful money for GROSS W2 wages of $47K?

[JohnnyCash]

I don't know, Primary filer is not here right now to ask. I'm guessing the amount of redeemed lawful money checks totalled $14k for the year (for ex. $7000 x 2 checks).

BTW, quatlude agrees with me the IRS is likely to send a letter asking about no return (or income not entered on the 1040):

The 1099-MISC for 2012 is for more than $79,000 of non-employee compensation, and that's likely to result in a letter asking about a return, but it's still early. Returns for 2012 that were on an automatic extension to file were only due last October, so it could be months before the IRS notices that there's no return for that SSN (assuming that the SSN on the 1099 is correct) and sends out a letter.

I don't really know how the IRS processes these things, but I would expect that it would depend to a great extent on how JC responds. No response might result in nothing, or it might result in an SFR and a notice of deficiency based on the 1099.

Or there might be a series of administrative summonses to get bank records and information from businesses that have sent him Forms 1099 in the past, followed by a notice of deficiency.

If JC responds with gibberish or attitude, it might go straight to criminal investigations.

I don't know if there's any way to predict the timing or process for these kinds of things.

LPC

That is to say, ordinary Americans endorsing Federal Reserve currency get the IRS letters, not me. I use lawful money. No IRS letter indicates the IRS agrees that lawful money is not Title 26 income.

[Noah]

Congrats on the win. Doug may be suggesting you could have done better, that you're only half the distance to the goal, maybe some trick involved here. There was about $7100 withheld in various federal taxes according to the W-2 form. Minus the $5000 refund means you paid about $2100 to the system. Now I'm not saying you're a wolf in sheep's underpants, or if they even wear underwear, but as an outlet for ideas ...

[doug555]

Congrats on the win. Doug may be suggesting you could have done better, that you're only half the distance to the goal, maybe some trick involved here. There was about $7100 withheld in various federal taxes according to the W-2 form. Minus the $5000 refund means you paid about $2100 to the system. Now I'm not saying you're a wolf in sheep's underpants, or if they even wear underwear, but as an outlet for ideas ...

Correct. If this demand "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)" had been on record since Jan 1, 2013, then this filer could have gotten all $7100 FITW refunded. So, evidently, "co-mingling" of funds is not an issue. The $2100 was legitimately paid as a "usage fee" for the FRNs that were used.

And I now think that JohnnyCash's position that the IRS will probably not dispute 1040's with lawful money demands is correct.

It would stir up a more formal judicial recognition of this remedy, and thereby increase its publicity and use.

So, I am very grateful for what JohnnyCash has done and posted here for all of us to see that lawful money demands are being honored by the IRS, despite any "mistakes" being made by the filers.

[ohiofoiarequest]

There's nothing to stop the mistaken party from correcting the mistake...unless it's a lack of knowledge.

[doug555]

There's nothing to stop the mistaken party from correcting the mistake...unless it's a lack of knowledge.

Correct.

BTW, I just updated post10417 for those planning on doing a 1040 Online Filing for last year.

[EZrhythm]

Why didn't filer demand lawful money for GROSS W2 wages of $47K?

Filer may always send in an ammended return.


For those who desire to RLM (Redeem Lawful Money) before evidence of redemption was established use, "...Redeemed in lawful money nunc pro tunc."

[ag maniac]

Correct.

BTW, I just updated post10417 for those planning on doing a 1040 Online Filing for last year.

doug555....I just wanna say --> YOU ROCK, OL' MAN !!!!

THANX ALOT !!

[itsmymoney]

Correct. If this demand "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)" had been on record since Jan 1, 2013, then this filer could have gotten all $7100 FITW refunded. So, evidently, "co-mingling" of funds is not an issue. The $2100 was legitimately paid as a "usage fee" for the FRNs that were used.

And I now think that JohnnyCash's position that the IRS will probably not dispute 1040's with lawful money demands is correct.

It would stir up a more formal judicial recognition of this remedy, and thereby increase its publicity and use.

So, I am very grateful for what JohnnyCash has done and posted here for all of us to see that lawful money demands are being honored by the IRS, despite any "mistakes" being made by the filers.

Doug555 and JohnnyCash...

Doug555: This 'co-mingling' of redeeming funds was your concern over at 'Treasury Letter' (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...tter-from-1984), where you suggested refraining from this. I'm wondering if you consider Johnny's method to be a DEDUCTION rather than a 'all transactions' REDUCTION, where BOTH are respectively correct. Perhaps we should craft an addendum to the 'Treasury Letter' topic/thread regarding this fact?

JohnnyCash: I did not doubt your method was working (for what, 8 years now?). I saw the logic in your method, but also saw the logic behind Doug555's method. Just trying to look at all angles and decide what works for me. Apparently I can now amend 2013 and proceed with 2014 both in a 'co-mingled' fashion as a DEDUCTION. Then start taking the REDUCTION going forward from TY 2015 with the 'all transactions' demand.

If either of you disagree with my interpretations or presumptions above, please state your thoughts to educate us all.

Thank you both for your knowledge and insight.

imm

[JohnnyCash]

You're welcome guys. Yes, there was 32xx. in FITW- Fed income tax withheld (box 2), 32xx. in SS tax withheld (box 4), and 7xx. in Medicare tax withheld (box 6). Subtracting the $5xxx refund equals about $2100 paid to US Treasury. Yes the refund could have been higher with more lawful money redeemed but total LM redeemed for TY13 was $14k for Primary filer (I'm Secondary filer with no FR currency earnings), that's what we have record of. Can't go back in time and redeem more LM now. But perhaps this victory will give Primary filer the confidence to redeem more LM going forward.

Srsly $2100? Doesn't even cover my Dad's SS payout for the month! How can the govt continue all their entitlement payouts on $2100 from the average family, let alone pay the banks their cut? If half the families in America pay only $2100/yr in taxes ... how will your Banking Cabal survive? The simple answer is, it can't. The bank & tax scam cannot continue on so little money. This is the end game. The run on the Fed. Lawful money users are a real threat to their scam.

No "mistake" was made in this filing, no deception or trickery involved in this win. We got the refund requested, a legal win. It's another glaring example of LAWFUL MONEY success. The Silver Bullet. LM works for both W2/W4 workers and 1099 workers.

There's no shame in admitting you've been out-coached and outplayed.

[itsmymoney]

You're welcome guys. Yes, there was 32xx. in FITW- Fed income tax withheld (box 2), 32xx. in SS tax withheld (box 4), and 7xx. in Medicare tax withheld (box 6). Subtracting the $5xxx refund equals about $2100 paid to US Treasury. Yes the refund could have been higher with more lawful money redeemed but total LM redeemed for TY13 was $14k for Primary filer (I'm Secondary filer with no FR currency earnings), that's what we have record of. Can't go back in time and redeem more LM now. But perhaps this victory will give Primary filer the confidence to redeem more LM going forward.

Srsly $2100? Doesn't even cover my Dad's SS payout for the month! How can the govt continue all their entitlement payouts on $2100 from the average family, let alone pay the banks their cut? If half the families in America pay only $2100/yr in taxes ... how will your Banking Cabal survive? The simple answer is, it can't. The bank & tax scam cannot continue on so little money. This is the end game. The run on the Fed. Lawful money users are a real threat to their scam.

No "mistake" was made in this filing, no deception or trickery involved in this win. We got the refund requested, a legal win. It's another glaring example of LAWFUL MONEY success. The Silver Bullet. LM works for both W2/W4 workers and 1099 workers.

There's no shame in admitting you've been out-coached and outplayed.

Johnny,

Thanks again. However, no one was 'out-coached and outplayed'. In fact, I (and probably others) will 'win' with BOTH methods (yours and Doug555's) depending on if/when we executed an 'all transactions' demand going forward. 'Win Win' is an appropriate term here!

If you were a humble person you would thank Doug555 because the 'all transactions' method will return more Lawful Money than 'your' method. Just saying.

Thanks again to both of you!

[JohnnyCash]

No. Both methods result in the same $3588 refund. Doug even says so: "NOTICE, however, you are only asking for and getting a refund of the FITW,,, namely, 3588."
Using the "John DOH" filer grossing $800/week, $41600/year:

DOUG555 EXAMPLE:
41,600 + 3588 + 1747.20 + 603.20 = 47538.40
Line 21 has (47538.40)
Line 22 has (5938.40)
Refund of 3588.

NET PAY EXAMPLE:
Line 21 has (35662.)
Line 22 has 5938.
Refund of 3588.

http://jesse2012.com/JTD1040.pdf

Heavy is the head that wears a crown.

[ag maniac]

You're right Johnny...same refund both ways....and for that matter, same refund if you manipulate the numbers for a GROSS PAY EXAMPLE.

And that gross pay ties back into Doug555's "ALL TRANSACTIONS" reasoning....to include the FITW & FICA amounts for the "W-2" employees....and your mention on another post "You cannot exclude or deduct more than your foreign earned income for the year."

I understand the logic behind the "All Transactions", but had such a hard time wrapping my head around the actual numbers in doug's example....especially when the refund comes out the same when using Gross Pay....and in my mind Gross Pay includes the transactions of FITW & FICA....but I definitely see the logic of not using Net Pay for the reason that FRN's & Lawful Money become co-mingled.