I received a 3176C 'frivolous letter' for 2013 1040x Amended return with LM demand

[itsmymoney]

You are welcome.

I am familiar with the tact. I have never used it but can see it has value for one who understand what he is doing. Also see US v Rifen. Read Beard carefully. Remember at common law I can prosecute from my court - with two "good faith" notices and silence I have my judgement - I only need enforcement. Read between the lines and you will see without me telling you.

Clarification on statement: I know you did not file a zero return...that does not matter one bit to the argument of friv filing. Myself I just called a couple of times got a very nice lady on the phone and talked her thru the agencies mistake. I have posted extensively in these forums concerning the fact that the front line people are mostly ignorant. Treat them nicely and they will return the favor. Remember the call is being recorded - that is a good thing. Especially if a MISTAKE has occurred.

As for my part, I did not wait, I called immediately. Of course I could not accept their notice so I wrote them a letter thanking them for their good faith notice but kindly refusing on the cause of the incorrect presumption of obligation.

The trustee is ALWAYS presumed guilty and must prove his/her innocence. The creator of the use [CQU] is making a demand for return of ledger upon a "presumed trustee".

Again, I don't follow the tact used in this return - i can see its merits but I can't understand it and therefore I don't use what I don't comprehend and can't understand. I keep it very simple. I look forward to the day when i can have a face to face sit down with one of their agents - I was attempting to gain such an audience but alas they wanted to just talk to me on the phone.

1. If you read Beard what was faulty concerning the argument?
2. In US v. Rifen what is faulty concerning that argument?

United States v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182, 184 (10th Cir. 1980) – the court affirmed the conviction for willfully failing to file a return and rejected the taxpayer’s argument that “the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, § 8, United States Constitution.”

3. Can you point out the flaw in RICKMAN's argument?


Regards,
MJ

MJ,

I would like to respond in part here, specifically for number 2. ...

2. In US v. Rifen what is faulty concerning that argument?

The argument...

Rifen testified as to his belief that federal reserve notes are not authorized by the United States Constitution because they are not redeemable in specie, and are therefore not subject to taxation

The law as disclosed by the judge himself...

No such evidence was necessary. Congress has declared federal reserve notes legal tender, 31 U.S.C. § 392, and federal reserve notes are taxable dollars.

So 'federal reserve notes' THEMSELVES are 'taxable dollars'. Did the judge really say that, on the record?!!!!!! In other words, Rifen's "wages" (i.e. pay, though "statutory" in that respect) were in the form of FRN's therefore 'taxable dollars'.

Basically the judge is saying that the tax was/is SOLELY on the use of FRN's..."federal reserve notes are taxable dollars."

Rifen's argument is faulty because he was arguing 'form of payment', not 'redemption of payment'. He did not have the option of specie (gold, silver), but he DID have the option to redeem in lawful money in the form of U.S. Notes - but he mentioned nothing in that respect.

That's how I'm seeing it. Would like your comments, MJ. Thanks.