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

[itsmymoney]

Well folks, all is not well for me in LM land. Probably bit off more than I could chew, but regardless. Let me explain...

Filed a regular (late) 1040 for 2013 in December 2014. I had to file quickly for reasons I won't get into here. Then, since I had redeemed ALL of my checks in lawful money for 2013, I filed an amended 1040x including the lawful money deduction end of February 2015. Probably should have let it go, but there it is. Unfortunately today I received a 3176C letter stating that I have submitted a 'return or purported return claiming one or more frivolous positions'.

So I'm supposed to file a 'corrected return' within 30 days or they will start the collection process. But I've ALREADY filed an original return! And where does it say taking a lawful money deduction is 'frivolous'. And this coming off just receiving my LM REFUND for 2014!!! So surely mentioning the 2014 refund in my defense of 2013 will draw red flags for THAT return, no?

I'm beside myself. I'm considering calling them to explain that I have already filed a return. I can't file again, right? Where is their evidence that taking a LM deduction is 'frivolous'? They can surely DENY the amended refund, but to call it frivolous and punish me for another $5000?!! I've been down this road too many times with CTC returns and I DO NOT WANT TO PAY THAT AGAIN! At best I'd like to stalemate them into not collecting.

Any suggestions are welcome. I'm also considering contacting Marc Stevens as well, but I know David and others have great ideas here as well.
imm

itsmymoney

Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 3:34 pm

[Michael Joseph]

Well folks, all is not well for me in LM land. Probably bit off more than I could chew, but regardless. Let me explain...

Filed a regular (late) 1040 for 2013 in December 2014. I had to file quickly for reasons I won't get into here. Then, since I had redeemed ALL of my checks in lawful money for 2013, I filed an amended 1040x including the lawful money deduction end of February 2015. Probably should have let it go, but there it is. Unfortunately today I received a 3176C letter stating that I have submitted a 'return or purported return claiming one or more frivolous positions'.

So I'm supposed to file a 'corrected return' within 30 days or they will start the collection process. But I've ALREADY filed an original return! And where does it say taking a lawful money deduction is 'frivolous'. And this coming off just receiving my LM REFUND for 2014!!! So surely mentioning the 2014 refund in my defense of 2013 will draw red flags for THAT return, no?

I'm beside myself. I'm considering calling them to explain that I have already filed a return. I can't file again, right? Where is their evidence that taking a LM deduction is 'frivolous'? They can surely DENY the amended refund, but to call it frivolous and punish me for another $5000?!! I've been down this road too many times with CTC returns and I DO NOT WANT TO PAY THAT AGAIN! At best I'd like to stalemate them into not collecting.

Any suggestions are welcome. I'm also considering contacting Marc Stevens as well, but I know David and others have great ideas here as well.
imm

itsmymoney

Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 3:34 pm

Beard v commissioner Read it. That is the basis most likely of their claim. I think beard argued on exchange theory.

A few phone calls and perhaps a letter or two should clear up the matter.

I have been down this road. Read their arguments regarding zero returns. Most likely they are relying on those Supreme Court rulings. Before you say I did not file a zero return do yourself a favor and go read the foregoing.

Regards
MJ

[itsmymoney]

Beard v commissioner Read it. That is the basis most likely of their claim. I think beard argued on exchange theory.

A few phone calls and perhaps a letter or two should clear up the matter.

I have been down this road. Read their arguments regarding zero returns. Most likely they are relying on those Supreme Court rulings. Before you say I did not file a zero return do yourself a favor and go read the foregoing.

Regards
MJ

Michael,

Thank you for responding so quickly.

I read 'Beard', and have before but it was a good refresher.

The 1040x did not zero-out all tax liability. I simply stated a LM negative offset in column B (Net Change) on Line 1 which is the 'Adjusted Gross Income' line. I was left with a tax liability but much less than the original. Perhaps you can clarify your comment "Before you say I did not file a zero return do yourself a favor and go read the foregoing."

The 1040x does not have a 'Line 21' to enter the LM negative offset, therefore I stated the offset on Line 1. Now there is a Line 7 'credits' and a Line 10 'other taxes' but they do not appear to apply to the LM deduction. I also did not think it prudent to place the offset in Line 2 (itemized deductions or standard deduction).

Frankly, when I decided to send an amended LM return I was hesitant to do so given my history we these criminals. So now I need the proper strategy and responses to avert this.

[Michael Joseph]

Michael,

Thank you for responding so quickly.

I read 'Beard', and have before but it was a good refresher.

The 1040x did not zero-out all tax liability. I simply stated a LM negative offset in column B (Net Change) on Line 1 which is the 'Adjusted Gross Income' line. I was left with a tax liability but much less than the original. Perhaps you can clarify your comment "Before you say I did not file a zero return do yourself a favor and go read the foregoing."

The 1040x does not have a 'Line 21' to enter the LM negative offset, therefore I stated the offset on Line 1. Now there is a Line 7 'credits' and a Line 10 'other taxes' but they do not appear to apply to the LM deduction. I also did not think it prudent to place the offset in Line 2 (itemized deductions or standard deduction).

Frankly, when I decided to send an amended LM return I was hesitant to do so given my history we these criminals. So now I need the proper strategy and responses to avert this.

[itsmymoney]

Michael,

Quite the challenge you have posed! I accept. I am particularly interested in the 'prosecute my court' common-law tact. I relish going to the Courthouse or County-Recorder to file the proper documents. I am also considering a deny, deny, deny, 'no contest' response; which, perhaps can be a 'last resort' to what you have proposed here or in conjunction with said tact.

I will read the cited cases (I just mentioned RICKMAN to a suitor yesterday) and get back in a day or two with hopefully some good answers to your questions. If I can't find examples/procedures on that common-law 'prosecution' option perhaps you or someone can point me in the right direction. This battle I'm in is really a battle for everyone who is redeeming lawful money - and for reclaiming our rights.

Grateful for your involvement and for sharing your knowledge.
imm

[EZrhythm]

Well stated Michael!

Frivolous Filing notices are just that, a NOTICE and we all know what to do with a notice, "Refused For Cause".

Since certain clerical workers are not familiar with Refused For Cause it may be best to fashion one's own Notice and adding a bit more verbiage.

"NOTICE - Your notice regarding a frivilous filing penalty is refused for cause without dishonor. No liabiity is assumed and no consent nor acceptance of said notice is given."


Here is an informative read on the commercial aspects but when Section 3 is mentioned that is pertaining to negotiable instruments-
http://freedom-school.com/5-ways-to-handle-a-presentment.pdf

[Michael Joseph]

Michael,

Quite the challenge you have posed! I accept. I am particularly interested in the 'prosecute my court' common-law tact. I relish going to the Courthouse or County-Recorder to file the proper documents. I am also considering a deny, deny, deny, 'no contest' response; which, perhaps can be a 'last resort' to what you have proposed here or in conjunction with said tact.

Grateful for your involvement and for sharing your knowledge.
imm

You are welcome. If you will realize it then you will see that the agency is prosecuting from common law. It is a battle field of words and like Carl JUNG said when men have been reduced to statistical units then it matters not where in the ladder of statehood men or women act they are bound by their own fictions. So then we are talking about an account.

The promised land is everywhere - the chief shepherd has defaulted and therefore a resulting trust exists for those who understand and have honor enough to pick it up and go in and TAKE DOMINION. Nevertheless the international corporation exists today in Statehood - but who will understand the State? Will it be insurance? Perhaps the bottom of the keel needs insurance - Bottomry. But who will understand the accounts that understand the insurance accounts? Where is the value that understands the value? Whereof is origins? Think and you will find it.

You can feel free to jump in on the circle anytime you want. When you begin to see you rise above it all and it cannot bind you anymore. For how much insurance is enough? Accidentally kill someone and you will see you can never have enough. Therefore the ship of state has leaks.

Noah go build your ark and find rest. Those looking for some boat are lost - they "miss the boat" literally and figuratively.

I sit on a Board of Trustees managing the operations of a local farm. We created "veggie bucks" in order to trade within our private law boundary - but said bucks are bearer bonds - redeemable in real substance upon demand and exchange - those bucks might even one day be able to buy equity in the avails produced by the farm. Moo.

Nevertheless if you have a valid claim will you prosecute upon your claim or will you allow some numbskull clerk to print some "form letter" and remove you from your birth right? You decide.

For what can one man do? One man can change the world. One man can build a castle IF he gets up every day and goes to work! My word assures my ship of state!

Understand capacity. In one capacity you pledge your faith and credit. In another capacity you are reduced to a mere business man within the confines of corporate boundary. Who made Who? The constituted State is a wonderful fiction as long as the individual is free to express his/her gifts. When the "mean" becomes the norm then the "mass" is nothing but a scientific statical average. A blur of humanity serving a COMPUTER.



With best regards,
MJ

[Chex]

Interesting MJ. Veggie Bucks | Urban Oaks Organic Farm?

[itsmymoney]

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...

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.

[Michael Joseph]

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...



The law as disclosed by the judge himself...



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.

Forget about substance. Money is what you trade with as a medium of exchange. Now quit on money and think TRUST. You must comprehend trusts. Who is underwriting the Money. Meaning the use of FRN's reflects a bond deposited with the Federal Reserve. So it is the United States bond which is underwriting the FRN. So in a sense the FRN is a promise to perform backed by US Bonds. And US Bonds are understood in substance internationally and in pledges domestically. Nevertheless there is equity understanding the notes in circulation.

The use of the notes is a benefit subject to an obligation. This is why I have endeavored so much to explore Uses, Trust, CQU and CQT.

Now when you get your mind around that then OF COURSE FRN's are taxable - or said another way - subject to the use fee. To argue against that is to deny the existence of the trust and the benefit of law.

Now the FRN is a dual capacity note. The greater always redeems the lesser. Therefore I don't care what you give me as long as it is legal tender. I fulfill the law when I make my demand for lawful money. Now is the law no more once I make my demand or does it still stand upon a future choice? Can it be said that I am forever without the IRS revenue agents just because I demand lawful money today? Perhaps I will do a deal tomorrow based on fractional reserve lending practices. Therefore there is always a presumption.

And since computers are the front line gate keepers these days, it may be a while before a living soul is reached.

The use bears the title TAXPAYER.

Regards,
MJ

[itsmymoney]

Forget about substance. Money is what you trade with as a medium of exchange. Now quit on money and think TRUST. You must comprehend trusts. Who is underwriting the Money. Meaning the use of FRN's reflects a bond deposited with the Federal Reserve. So it is the United States bond which is underwriting the FRN. So in a sense the FRN is a promise to perform backed by US Bonds. And US Bonds are understood in substance internationally and in pledges domestically. Nevertheless there is equity understanding the notes in circulation.

The use of the notes is a benefit subject to an obligation. This is why I have endeavored so much to explore Uses, Trust, CQU and CQT.

Now when you get your mind around that then OF COURSE FRN's are taxable - or said another way - subject to the use fee. To argue against that is to deny the existence of the trust and the benefit of law.

Now the FRN is a dual capacity note. The greater always redeems the lesser. Therefore I don't care what you give me as long as it is legal tender. I fulfill the law when I make my demand for lawful money. Now is the law no more once I make my demand or does it still stand upon a future choice? Can it be said that I am forever without the IRS revenue agents just because I demand lawful money today? Perhaps I will do a deal tomorrow based on fractional reserve lending practices. Therefore there is always a presumption.

And since computers are the front line gate keepers these days, it may be a while before a living soul is reached.

The use bears the title TAXPAYER.

Regards,
MJ

Yes, the TRUST angle (and associated terms CQU, CQT). Been seeing that throughout other threads here and also by a respected poster on the CB's forum. It appears that the 'obligation' (or not) is very much the topic when it comes to the return of the estate (1040), as it has been referenced. It is true that the money itself is not taxable, but rather the "income" (gain, benefit, profit) as a result of some 'excise-taxable event'.

As I'm interpreting this, exercising a RILM demand ends the obligation of any benefit derived from FRN usage, based on the option of redeeming money solely with the U.S Treasury and not 'contracting' with a 3rd party (the Federal Reserve). If that is true, then it would appear that Govco or the Treasury is 'contracted/obligated' to repay the debt to the Fed from their own coffers and not 'me'.

[BLBereans]

Yes, the TRUST angle (and associated terms CQU, CQT). Been seeing that throughout other threads here and also by a respected poster on the CB's forum. It appears that the 'obligation' (or not) is very much the topic when it comes to the return of the estate (1040), as it has been referenced. It is true that the money itself is not taxable, but rather the "income" (gain, benefit, profit) as a result of some 'excise-taxable event'.

As I'm interpreting this, exercising a RILM demand ends the obligation of any benefit derived from FRN usage, based on the option of redeeming money solely with the U.S Treasury and not 'contracting' with a 3rd party (the Federal Reserve). If that is true, then it would appear that Govco or the Treasury is 'contracted/obligated' to repay the debt to the Fed from their own coffers and not 'me'.

Have you considered that you still derive a benefit from the use of "demanded lawful money"? Are you the creator of these notes, whether "redeemed" or not? Do you own these notes? If not, who does?

Have you considered that said notes are backed by the "full faith and credit of the United States"? Where does United States acquire said "full faith and credit"? What backs this "full faith and credit"?

If United States does NOT live and breathe, it must use the energy and property of those who do as collateral, no? Did you pledge? Was it pledged for you? Did you acknowledge, agree with and/or execute completion of said pledge?

itsmymoney?

If it's truly "your money", then why are you concerned with avoiding a tax liability from a foreign entity?

[itsmymoney]

Have you considered that you still derive a benefit from the use of "demanded lawful money"? Are you the creator of these notes, whether "redeemed" or not? Do you own these notes? If not, who does?

Have you considered that said notes are backed by the "full faith and credit of the United States"? Where does United States acquire said "full faith and credit"? What backs this "full faith and credit"?

If United States does NOT live and breathe, it must use the energy and property of those who do as collateral, no? Did you pledge? Was it pledged for you? Did you acknowledge, agree with and/or execute completion of said pledge?

itsmymoney?

If it's truly "your money", then why are you concerned with avoiding a tax liability from a foreign entity?

Do I not have a choice to avoid a private contract with the Fed? I admit that Obamacare seems to set a precedent otherwise, but then that 'law' is a farce against the Constitution regardless of what the SC decided (of whom they are becoming more biased for GovCo every day). If the law is to be honored then I DO have a choice to avoid the PRESUMPTION of a tax liability. I MUST be concerned about avoiding it because I am FORCED TO by the coercion of signing those presumptive-indentured-slave W-4 forms. See HJR-192 below for clarity.

https://iuvdeposit.wordpress.com/hjr-192/

[doug555]

IMO, all of their contracts rightly presume the use of FRNs.

It is OK for one to sign a W-4, just in case that presumption ever becomes ratified by one's future conduct/actions.

However, I ensure that my conduct always rebuts that presumption by continually writing my disclaimer on my checks and deposits slips in this manner:




This is how I got started, and it has worked successfully for 4 years now.

If it works to rebut a tax-liability contract, why should we think that it does not work for all other contracts that are based on FRN-usage?

[itsmymoney]

IMO, all of their contracts rightly presume the use of FRNs.

It is OK for one to sign a W-4, just in case that presumption ever becomes ratified by one's future conduct/actions.

However, I ensure that my conduct always rebuts that presumption by continually writing my disclaimer on my checks and deposits slips in this manner:

[ATTACH]2533[/ATTACH]


This is how I got started, and it has worked successfully for 4 years now.

If it works to rebut a tax-liability contract, why should we think that it does not work for all other contracts that are based on FRN-usage?

Doug, thanks for the comments and the links again. The '1040blogspot' is a true work of art and a great one-stop-shop for 1040 'stuff' in this regard.

BTW, I filed LM 'net' deduction for 2014 and received the 'net' deduction despite NOT attaching a supporting schedule. The adjacent area to the left of my Line 21 says, "Lawful Money (see http:/tinyurl.com/'the cloud folder of LM evidence')". I know the supporting schedule is necessary for the 'all transactions' method; but is it necessary for the 'net pay' method if I have disclosed the location of the evidence via the url on the 1040 itself? They processed it, but I'm wondering if I ever get a 'notice' for this filing whether the lack of a supporting schedule is significant going forward. I suppose that is opinion, but would like to hear yours.

Regards,
imm