IRS inquiry: Do incorrect 1099s need rebuttal?

[ManOntheLand]

Treefarmer is a Pete HENDRICKSON, Cracking the Code victim.

Your terse ad hominem attacks in your last couple of posts are doing nothing for my confidence in your judgment or your intentions. I just hope suitors will follow your example in not filing, rather than follow your indefensible suggestion that they take an LMR deduction on a 1040.

JUST SAY NO TO 10-4-0!!!

There are no victims. Only volunteers. The Achilles heel of the CTC "method" is that it involves filing a 1040. You can argue duress to void a W-4 or W-9 form since you have to work, but nobody makes you file a 1040. Unless you are going to do it their way, there is no excuse for filing a 1040. Those who do so with LMR are volunteering and may someday be referred to as a "David Merrill Remedy victim". How do you like the sound of that? Maybe the proponent of the next cute method of tax return filing will dismiss what your "victims" have to say on their forum.

When I stopped filing 1040's and just disputed information returns with a simple written statement (noting the duress and that I actually work in the private sector) and demanded they update their records, I had no problem. Even before I ever heard of LMR. I see LMR as a remedy for one of several nexuses of taxation. The others are created when I am trying to just make a living and can be nullified by making a record of the duress and fraud.

Since I sent an inquiry letter to Commissioner of IRS and Secretary of Treasury about filing requirement and received no response, I have not even bothered to dispute information returns much less file a 1040 and they are leaving me alone.

Best defense is a good offense though. Dispute info returns and demand they update their records so their computer doesn't start spitting out demands for you to file.

The only way any tax avoidance method is really going to "work" for anyone is to the degree you are too much trouble for too little payoff (whether in money or publicity a la Wesley Snipes). No matter what argument you rely on, they can get the argument "rejected" by a Federal Court. So they have to know you are ready to ruin their cover story that "everybody has to pay his fair share" and that all Americans are taxed directly on all that comes in. This is what a jury of average Americans will believe. They won't risk having that bubble burst. Part of the reason I sent my letter to the Commish is to get such bubble bursting into my administrative record, so it is automatically admissible evidence.

Since no one can be 100% guaranteed against being harassed by auntie no matter what they do, make the worst case scenario being charged with a misdemeanor (willful failure to file) rather than a felony (tax evasion or filing false documents). JUST SAY NO to 10-4-0.

[ManOntheLand]

I think the IRS is just chomping at the bit to get some numbskull into court that has zero clue what they are doing - just following some guru they read about on the internet.

Or a "numbskull" filing a 1040 with an LMR deduction. One can challenge jurisdiction but if they have your signature on a 1040--not so much.

[David Merrill]

Or a "numbskull" filing a 1040 with an LMR deduction. One can challenge jurisdiction but if they have your signature on a 1040--not so much.

ManOntheLand has become unrealistic. In reality people may be charged with a criminal penalty for Failure to File. If one redeems lawful money then it is only honest to claim so on the 1040 Form, under legal signature.

Treefarmer is a Pete HENDRICKSON, Cracking the Code victim.

Your terse ad hominem attacks in your last couple of posts are doing nothing for my confidence in your judgment or your intentions. I just hope suitors will follow your example in not filing, rather than follow your indefensible suggestion that they take an LMR deduction on a 1040.

I feel compelled to react because I am not attacking Treefarmer, I am simply stating something revealed in the forums here. This kind of projection and illusion that remedy is ineffective is disturbing and disruptive.

The bottom line is that people are getting full refunds with the IRS blessing and the only FrivPens incurred are to suitors who have signed into the financial industry sponsored by the Federal Reserve's elastic currency. This makes perfect sense to me in hindsight.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. I recently encountered a suitor preparing his 1040 Form for 2012 and planning for a full refund. His descriptions caused me to inquire when he began redeeming lawful money - May 1, 2013 - just recently. I informed him that he could not realistically try for a refund until filing for 2013 (in 2014) and even then only from May 1 onward.

I think that readers here might be able to ponder that and see why I am reacting to MOtL's attacks on my character.

[Brian]

David: Take a look at ORS 652.110 http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/652.html

I'm curious your thoughts on that.....

[David Merrill]

David: Take a look at ORS 652.110 http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/652.html

I'm curious your thoughts on that.....

PAYMENT AND COLLECTION OF WAGES GENERALLY



652.110 Method of paying employees; agreement on method of payment; revocation of agreement. (1) A person engaged in any business or enterprise of any kind in this state may not issue, in payment of or as evidence of indebtedness for wages due an employee, any order, check, memorandum or other instrument of indebtedness unless the instrument is negotiable and payable without discount in cash on demand at some bank or other established place of business in the county where the employee lives or works and where a sufficient amount of funds have been provided and are or will be available for the payment of the instrument when due. The person shall, upon presentation and demand, pay the instrument in lawful money of the United States.

(2) This section does not in any way limit or interfere with the right of any employee to accept from any person, as an evidence or acknowledgment of indebtedness for wages due the employee, a negotiable instrument, payable at some future date with interest.

(3) An employer and an employee may agree to authorize the employer to deposit without discount wages due the employee in the employee’s account in a financial institution, as defined in ORS 706.008, in this state.

(4) An employer and an employee may agree that the employer may pay wages through a direct deposit system, automated teller machine card, payroll card or other means of electronic transfer if the employee may:

(a) Make an initial withdrawal of the entire amount of net pay without cost to the employee; or

(b) Choose to use another means of payment of wages that involves no cost to the employee.

(5) An agreement described in subsection (4) of this section must be made in the language that the employer principally uses to communicate with the employee.

(6)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, to revoke an agreement described in subsection (4) of this section, an employee shall give the employer a written notice of revocation of the agreement. Unless the employer and employee agree otherwise, the agreement is revoked 30 days after the date the notice is received by the employer.

(b) To revoke an agreement described in subsection (4) of this section, an employee who works for an employer as a seasonal farmworker as defined in ORS 652.145 or an employee who is employed in packing, canning, freezing or drying any variety of agricultural crops shall give the employer notice of revocation of the agreement either orally or in writing. Unless the employer and the employee agree otherwise, the agreement is revoked 10 days after the date the notice is received by the employer. [Amended by 1975 c.191 §1; 1999 c.59 §191; 2007 c.546 §1]

I presume that your direct my interest to the term negotiable.

Our original non-endorsement demanded payment in non-negotiable Federal Reserve notes. Negotiable instruments must be redeemable in equal or better value. This by deduction leaves US notes the non-negotiable instrument in America. Therefore the suitor would demand US notes in the form of FRNs.

The law above stipulates that the instruments employers use to pay employees be of a set value and that the employee not be required to discount his pay when redeeming the instrument. From the employer's perspective I do not see this having any impact on the employee's demand for lawful money.

[Brian]

I presume that your direct my interest to the term negotiable.

Our original non-endorsement demanded payment in non-negotiable Federal Reserve notes. Negotiable instruments must be redeemable in equal or better value. This by deduction leaves US notes the non-negotiable instrument in America. Therefore the suitor would demand US notes in the form of FRNs.

The law above stipulates that the instruments employers use to pay employees be of a set value and that the employee not be required to discount his pay when redeeming the instrument. From the employer's perspective I do not see this having any impact on the employee's demand for lawful money.

I also found this part interesting "pay the instrument in lawful money of the United States." + the demand part. It seems as though the local law spells it out pretty clearly. Thanks!

[David Merrill]

The person (employer) shall, upon presentation and demand, pay the instrument in lawful money of the United States.

Stipulated the employee demands such.

[Michael Joseph]

ManOntheLand has become unrealistic. In reality people may be charged with a criminal penalty for Failure to File. If one redeems lawful money then it is only honest to claim so on the 1040 Form, under legal signature.



I feel compelled to react because I am not attacking Treefarmer, I am simply stating something revealed in the forums here. This kind of projection and illusion that remedy is ineffective is disturbing and disruptive.

The bottom line is that people are getting full refunds with the IRS blessing and the only FrivPens incurred are to suitors who have signed into the financial industry sponsored by the Federal Reserve's elastic currency. This makes perfect sense to me in hindsight.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. I recently encountered a suitor preparing his 1040 Form for 2012 and planning for a full refund. His descriptions caused me to inquire when he began redeeming lawful money - May 1, 2013 - just recently. I informed him that he could not realistically try for a refund until filing for 2013 (in 2014) and even then only from May 1 onward.

I think that readers here might be able to ponder that and see why I am reacting to MOtL's attacks on my character.

I comprehend your position David Merrill. I am only saying the blessing is in the hand of the doer. The researcher and the hearer cannot receive the blessing. But one acting in any fashion must take full liability for himself. As such you will NEVER get a call from me saying this 12USC411 stuff did not work for me.

Rather, my response, if any, is going to be in analysis of what I may have done incorrectly - so I propound that one is bound by the laws of nature to look inward into his own heart.

Shalom brother,
MJ

[Michael Joseph]

Or a "numbskull" filing a 1040 with an LMR deduction. One can challenge jurisdiction but if they have your signature on a 1040--not so much.

I have given this a bit of thought. I only have this to offer. As a man I can agree to do certain things for another group of men. Now if I am in agreement to make a use of another's property - then clearly the other has jurisdiction regarding the matter. I made a use of their property. Society [the other] generally likes other folks to handle the nasty affairs [call them representatives]. Until the day I find my name on the money....it ain't mine.

[David Merrill]

Stipulated the employee demands such.

Thank you MJ!

I will add that endorsment is making a demand for private credit from the Fed.