IRS inquiry: Do incorrect 1099s need rebuttal?

[JohnnyCash]

Yes, as a CtC-reader I'm aware of the custom "trade or business" definition. I would agree that anything reported on an info return such as a 1099 or W2 carries the PRESUMPTION of taxable income. Enough presumption for the IRS to run with, enough for the IRS to attempt to convince you you've made taxable income. Conditioning. Don't forget this is a scam run by banksters in conjunction with US government. As my letter of inquiry above reveals... these presumptions are mere hearsay, you have a right to be heard regarding the true nature of these payments.

In my experience the determinant of taxable income is endorsement of Federal Reserve credit. That is the contract nexus. I say this because I have bank accounts, correction, my PERSON has bank accounts, but I have been unmolested by the IRS for five (5) years because I deposit LAWFUL MONEY into those bank accounts via restricted endorsement. I am non-contracting. I have also seen with my own eyes, a corporation fully-ensnared in the matrix, who paid payroll taxes late and assessed penalties by statute because of it, threatened with levy, who then filed Form 843 with evidence OF HAVING REDEEMED LAWFUL MONEY ... and won. The IRS backed down. They didn't want to go there. I have repeatedly seen the Feds not want to touch this issue of "Fed Reserve credit v. lawful money" with a ten foot pole. Says something, doesn't it. Lawful money remedy works for PERSONs and Corporations too.

Treefarmer, if the IRS is pursuing you for a period when you actually were endorsing Federal Reserve credit, well then, your options are limited. After all, you or your ENTITY was contracting wasn't it? Albeit a non-disclosed, hidden contract. You might sue for "fraud by omission" or hint at it anyway. After all, the IRS doesn't know exactly when you started redeeming lawful money. Can you imagine a lawsuit where the taxpayer was asked "on what date did you first restrictively endorse a check into lawful money?" NOT GONNA HAPPEN. I submit to you they absolutely cannot have any sort of this talk on the record, it would admit the scam. Therefore you might bluff them into a stand-down victory... with just the threat of a lawsuit.