Supporting Schedule for the 1040 Form

[doug555]

In this and other examples of supporting schedule one can see that suitor attempts to recover SS, MED and other withholdings.

Question which arises is:
SS and alike payments are withheld by employer and suitor could never explicitly redeem those in LM. Therefore, IRS can assume that those withholding being made in FRN.

For all suitors who just have modified bank signature (or explicitly redeeming pay checks) this feels like a dangerous thing to do for reasons stated above.

For the suitors with Default Judgment in U.S. District Court - I don’t see any contradictions, so all power to you .
I hope that my conclusions are wrong, since it looks like many of “Non Default Judgment Suitors” may follow this or similar template.

To me it gets down to very simple perspective. Money that one doesn't handle and explicitly redeems in LM are theirs and subject to their fees/taxes etc.

In above, "realname" is referring to this post which contains this image below:



The above bold and italic statements by realname regarding the suitor and this Schedule are NOT correct.

The suitor was NOT "attempting to recover" said "other withholding amounts" -- Only the FITW amount was requested to be refunded.

Please understand: You are NOT getting back any withheld amounts except the Federal Income Tax Withheld (FITW).

Again: You are NOT getting back any withheld amounts except the Federal Income Tax Withheld (FITW)

All the other of withheld amounts are valid amounts that you must pay because of the services being received therefrom by contract agreement, now or in the future (Ex: Social Security).

These other amounts, along with FITW, are added to the schedule because these other amounts, which are rightly presumed to be FRNs, must also be REDEEMED -- yet not be REFUNDED!

Only the FITW amount is to be REFUNDED -- because this "tax" is a really an FRN USAGE FEE and you did NOT use FRNs -- you used and demanded by law USNs per 12 USC 411.

This REFUND is easy to misunderstand from just looking at the above Schedule, but I hope it is clear now. If not, please reply.

In rebuttal to realname's statement below, one CAN explicitly redeem ALL transactions, IF that is how you made your demand for same for "ALL TRANSACTIONS", and is ON THE RECORD as such, ie. "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)":

"SS and alike payments are withheld by employer and suitor could never explicitly redeem those in LM."

Thanks to Chex for his recent post re: Hawkins v. FTB, excerpted below. One's understanding of this Schedule and WHY you are submitting it is crucial to prove your INTENT to REDEEM FRNs - not to EVADE TAXES.

Hawkins v. FTB

Summarized by: Nicole Morrow

Date Filed: 09-15-2014
Case #: 11-16276
Circuit Judge Thomas for the Court; Circuit Judges Kleinfeld and Rawlinson
Full Text Opinion: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...5/11-16276.pdf

Bankruptcy Law: Specific intent is required for a showing of willful attempt to evade or defeat taxes when assessing in bankruptcy whether tax debt is dischargeable.

Trip Hawkins co-founded Electronic Arts, Inc. (“EA”) in the late 80’s, early 90’s. He created a wholly owned subsidiary called 3DO to develop and market video games. With his second wife Lisa, they purchased their home for $3.5 million and lived a lavish lifestyle. By the advice of his accountant Hawkins sheltered his gains from tax liability in a Foreign Leveraged Investment Portfolio and an Offshore Portfolio Investment Strategy. Over the next years Hawkins claimed large losses on his tax returns and was audited for his 1997-2000 returns. Around the same time, 3DO deteriorated and filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy court in 2003. While insolvent there was no change in lifestyle for the Hawkins’ and they continued to live lavishly. They filed a personal chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2006. The IRS and California Franchise Tax Board (“FTB”) argued that the Hawkins’ maintenance of their lavish lifestyle while insolvent was a willful attempt to evade taxes and thus unpaid taxes should be excepted from discharge in bankruptcy. The key question for the court here is the meaning of the word “willful”. The bankruptcy court, affirmed by the district court, concluded that the Hawkins’ lifestyle immediately prior and during bankruptcy was a willful attempt to evade taxes and held that Mr. Hawkin’s tax debt would not be dischargeable. The panel reviewed the statutory construction, legislative history, and case precedent to conclude that the term willful was to be narrowly construed. Simply spending beyond one’s means would not qualify as a willful attempt to evade tax because the willful attempt requires the specific intent to evade the tax. The government must establish that the debtor took the actions with the specific intent to evade the tax debt. Merely living beyond one’s means does not suffice to meet the specific intent required to evade tax. REVERSED and REMANDED.

Do you see now that YOU must be clear in your INTENT when you submit a 1040 Return with Line 21 as the total amount of FRNs that require REDEMPTION based on your demands for lawful money, to the best of your knowledge and belief (INTENT)?

Does not a substantive non-heasay record exist in your bank with your lawful demands on your checks and deposit slips that constitute admissible evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, your INTENT to comply with 12 USC 411 in redeeming FRNs for lawful money, and NOT to evade taxes?

And if you are using the below wording in your demands, you are also protected from court action by 12 USC 95a(2).





http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/p...-immunity.html





NOW...

"What do you have in YOUR wallet?"

I have USNs!!! And I can PROVE it!

Also see this post about the Schedule.