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

[doug555]

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

IMO, it would be better to be completely transparent and disclose all "evidence", to be proactive in rebutting all presumptions by creating admissible evidence on the record, and disclosing the same to interested parties in order to provide due notice and due process in exhausting all administrative remedies.

So, yes, I would create and upload a Supporting Schedule.

And thanks for the nice compliment!

BTW: I just got an "Insta-watch" Digital and DVD copy of "Battle Los Angeles" from Walmart at this link for only $5. Awesome!!! You can watch it immediately, and repeatedly from Walmart's VuDu digital link!



Also, be sure to read my "interpretation" of this movie at: "Battle Los Angeles - A Message for the Firstfruits!"

[itsmymoney]

IMO, it would be better to be completely transparent and disclose all "evidence", to be proactive in rebutting all presumptions by creating admissible evidence on the record, and disclosing the same to interested parties in order to provide due notice and due process in exhausting all administrative remedies.

So, yes, I would create and upload a Supporting Schedule.

And thanks for the nice compliment!

BTW: I just got an "Insta-watch" Digital and DVD copy of "Battle Los Angeles" from Walmart at this link for only $5. Awesome!!! You can watch it immediately, and repeatedly from Walmart's VuDu digital link!

[ATTACH]2534[/ATTACH]

Also, be sure to read my "interpretation" of this movie at: "Battle Los Angeles - A Message for the Firstfruits!"

Ok, so the supporting schedule in this instance (TY 2014) is post-filing-and-refund but it shows good faith and accurate accounting. Is that the idea? Frankly, I don't think it wise to send the schedule separately to the IRS just to inform them that 'I missed a document in my cloud folder that you should see'. After all, they supposedly assessed the 1040 by looking at my cloud folder of LM evidence (which includes the original county-recorded demand). So regarding the transactions on the 2014 schedule, do I list all the transactions from the year-end W-2 showing only the net pay as a deduction in the LM deduction column? I think this is the basis for the full disclosure of taking only the net deduction, correct?

[doug555]

Ok, so the supporting schedule in this instance (TY 2014) is post-filing-and-refund but it shows good faith and accurate accounting. Is that the idea?
YES

Frankly, I don't think it wise to send the schedule separately to the IRS just to inform them that 'I missed a document in my cloud folder that you should see'.
I agree

After all, they supposedly assessed the 1040 by looking at my cloud folder of LM evidence (which includes the original county-recorded demand). So regarding the transactions on the 2014 schedule, do I list all the transactions from the year-end W-2 showing only the net pay as a deduction in the LM deduction column? I think this is the basis for the full disclosure of taking only the net deduction, correct?
I agree... I think there is an example of that type on StSC.

See blue comments above...

[itsmymoney]

See blue comments above...

Super. And thanks for the tip on the VUDU!!! Will set that up this week and download 'Battle' to Smart TV for viewing.

[Darkmagus]

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

Notice how it doesn't say you "you filed a frivolous return"...there IS a difference. They won't admit to it though.

[ADBrooks11]

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

Update on this?

[ManOntheLand]

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

Any deduction that is not authorized under the IRC may be considered frivolous, especially if it appears to IRS that you are using it to defeat or impede the correct assessment of tax based on what would properly be "taxable income".

Also be aware that they are not required to accept amended filings.

The fact that you managed to get a refund for 2014 means only that a refund was issued---this often happens without much scrutiny of the claim. As you seem to have experienced with CTC. They often issue refunds during the busy tax season, only to come after the refund later. You are probably aware that they have three years to audit and adjust the assessment, and/or assess a frivolous penalty, which they often do instead of an audit to avoid having to waste further time and energy of the their personnel dealing with uncooperative taxpayers.

I would suggest you no longer file LM return, or any return at all, if you believe you are not liable. If you want to investigate an approach that actually works and that IRS will recognize without risking penalties, contact redacted@harmful.com for information.

[David Merrill]

Any deduction that is not authorized under the IRC may be considered frivolous, especially if it appears to IRS that you are using it to defeat or impede the correct assessment of tax based on what would properly be "taxable income".

Redeeming lawful money is found in Section 16 of the Fed Act.

[ManOntheLand]

I repeat: lawful money deduction is NOT a deduction authorized under any provision of the Internal Revenue Code. Why is that?

[David Merrill]

It is the remedy.

Remedy/redemption/remember. We are redeemed.

[Gavilan]

"Why is that? "

You have to comprehend that there are two systems in place, one is a monetary system, the other a credit system.

The monetary system uses U.S. notes, and coins. The credit system uses what they call "elastic currency", which are represented by Federal Reserve Bank notes.

Now, David can show you I think there is a passage where they state that Federal Reserve Bank notes also represent U.S. notes.

Yeah, it's a total mind fk, but if you comprehend their scam, you can keep the wealth your labor generates.

[Gavilan]

This is an interesting read:

http://www.rapidtrends.com/it-almost-became-money-united-states-notes-versus-federal-reserve-notes/

[David Merrill]

Initially I get suspicious when these links become flawed. But they always show back up...

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx

The last three paragraphs explain things.

I think Man on the Land is coming from how an IRS agent will be compelled by the Memorandum(s) to assign a $5K FrivPen to a lawful money return. And since he is linking an email address about detaxing I assume there is a financial angle to his motives.

[Gavilan]

Here are some pdf that you may find informative as to the payment system and the use of bank credit.

[ManOntheLand]

Initially I get suspicious when these links become flawed. But they always show back up...

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx

The last three paragraphs explain things.

I think Man on the Land is coming from how an IRS agent will be compelled by the Memorandum(s) to assign a $5K FrivPen to a lawful money return. And since he is linking an email address about detaxing I assume there is a financial angle to his motives.

You are right that IRS will be inclined to penalize a lawful money return. Because such a return is indeed frivolous. If you request more info at the email address redacted@harmful.com, you will find out exactly why it's frivolous.

Re financial angle to my motives: Wrong.

Anyone who requests info at redacted@harmful.com will receive a free 32 page PDF report on lawful income tax avoidance and an approach that actually works and is actually recognized by IRS. Including how to deal with W2 and 1099 forms without filing a 1040 return. This means no $5,000 frivolous return penalties. I don't sell information, Mr. "Lawful money tru$$$t" ! What I have to offer is far too important not to share freely! With zero obligation whatsoever.

You are encouraged to share the info in the report with anyone you like, and especially with any tax professional you choose. See if they will assist you in implementing the information so There are no misunderstandings with IRS. Or ask said tax pro to debunk the information if they disagree with it. If you are not an expert on IRS process, please try to find a professional who is willing to help you.

Re lawful money deduction, any competent tax pro will tell you that is not a legitimate deduction. I would agree, but I will go further and tell you that if you learn how income tax really works (explained in the report) there is no need to take any such deduction anyway. If you have no income subject to federal tax in the first place, you have no need for any deductions.

Lawful money redemption is not a legit basis for deduction from "gross income" but rather could be seen as a basis for excluding amounts from "gross income". "Gross income" is the amount of income subject to tax that you start with before subtracting your deductions. If you have redeemed your earnings from being subject to federal tax, The proper process in that case would be to leave the amount that is excluded off the return completely.

If all your earnings are excluded from gross income (or you have $10k or less gross income) voila! No return is required. Sorry for the long post but u guys on this forum are pretty much all clueless about income tax. If you want an approach that works, request the report at redacted@harmful.com

And BTW I understand all of your dogma about money and credit on this forum completely-- it's really not hard to understand. I've been on here 4 years. Ur just way off base re income tax filing. Get the report and u will see income tax has nothing to do with money or federal reserve notes. Nothing!