Resistance and Refusal by Banks

[Mark Allan]

David, I did NOT get that part of the check modified.
The "Payable in Lawful Money 12USC411", (minus quotation marks) did get printed onto the checks.

I have in some cases been hand altering these new checks prior to their issue, crossing out the "the Order of" verbiage.

But the suitors here raise an interesting point.
It was my mind set at the time of placing the check order I wanted to leave no doubt about my application of Remedy, first establishing my modified signature cards, but then switching back & return to utilizing checks much more, again, believing (niavely I suspect) that with the issuance of each check I was further documenting my demand to use lawful money.

With my use of checks stating [B]Payable in Lawful Money 12USC411 [/B ](& somewhat inconsistent Payable to clause), the payee has been deprived the choice whether to use FRN's in that particular transaction.

While striving to ensure my own insistence, it never dawned on me I denied another a valid choice.

But on second thought, until my recent learning of remedy, my ignorance about a choice to use FRN versus lawful money was my own. By placing the notice of payment in lawful money, not only do I establish my persistent preference but maybe I introduce this new reality to another.


Finally; as I observe my slow steps toward understanding when compared to the keen, sharp, insights presented amongst these gathered here maybe I shouldn't try to expound on these matters. :-)

[David Merrill]

David, I did NOT get that part of the check modified.
The "Payable in Lawful Money 12USC411", (minus quotation marks) did get printed onto the checks.

I have in some cases been hand altering these new checks prior to their issue, crossing out the "the Order of" verbiage.

But the suitors here raise an interesting point.
It was my mind set at the time of placing the check order I wanted to leave no doubt about my application of Remedy, first establishing my modified signature cards, but then switching back & return to utilizing checks much more, again, believing (niavely I suspect) that with the issuance of each check I was further documenting my demand to use lawful money.

With my use of checks stating [B]Payable in Lawful Money 12USC411 [/B ](& somewhat inconsistent Payable to clause), the payee has been deprived the choice whether to use FRN's in that particular transaction.

While striving to ensure my own insistence, it never dawned on me I denied another a valid choice.

But on second thought, until my recent learning of remedy, my ignorance about a choice to use FRN versus lawful money was my own. By placing the notice of payment in lawful money, not only do I establish my persistent preference but maybe I introduce this new reality to another.


Finally; as I observe my slow steps toward understanding when compared to the keen, sharp, insights presented amongst these gathered here maybe I shouldn't try to expound on these matters. :-)

That is all pretty complicated all right.

That example at the top of the page is how somebody's boss/client is giving him his paycheck lately.

[Freed Gerdes]

Freed, I wanted to see on the letter where the bank states "since lawful money is income from a non-taxable source, such transaction should not be reported on Form 1040..."
Sorry to disappoint, mikecz, but that non-taxable source wording is in my letter to the IRS, in an effort to establish a rebuttable presumption.
I have the letters shot down to jpeg files, but they will not attach. Can anyone tell me how to attach a file or insert a pix here?

[David Merrill]

Freed, I wanted to see on the letter where the bank states "since lawful money is income from a non-taxable source, such transaction should not be reported on Form 1040..."
Sorry to disappoint, mikecz, but that non-taxable source wording is in my letter to the IRS, in an effort to establish a rebuttable presumption.
I have the letters shot down to jpeg files, but they will not attach. Can anyone tell me how to attach a file or insert a pix here?

I process my images and pdf's through ImageShack. They had a limit of 500 and I had to delete several images and then they opened up 5 gig to me!

Keep an Link Library in Word though. Searching for your images on ImageShack seems a bit problematic. That is how I do it - have all these images available. I have a link library doc open and can search for key words to find them.

I also utilize Google Docs, Box, Megacloud, YouTube etc.

[salsero]

31 CFR 103.34

WIth regard to banks requiring a SSN on a non-interest bearing account, I had come accross this statute but it appears it is valid from June 1972 thru Oct 2003. Does anyone know if there is a similiar statute that is current for 2013 that requires the bank TO REQUEST the SSN but nothing more?

[David Merrill]

31 CFR 103.34

WIth regard to banks requiring a SSN on a non-interest bearing account, I had come accross this statute but it appears it is valid from June 1972 thru Oct 2003. Does anyone know if there is a similiar statute that is current for 2013 that requires the bank TO REQUEST the SSN but nothing more?

Hi Salsero;

Please provide links and that makes it a lot easier to get started.

[Freed Gerdes]

Here is the thread of my rather combative correspondence with Bank of America.
First, my Notice and Demand for Lawful Money, filed with the Registrar of Deeds for the county, found at this link: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/18/006dki.jpg/.
Second, my Demand Letter to BofA, found at this link: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/203/003spz.jpg/
Third, BofA First Denial Letter, found at this link: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/202/004ebl.jpg/
Fourth, my Reply to BofA Denial Letter, found at this link: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/4/002htj.jpg/
Fifth, BofA Second Denial Letter, found at this link: http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/6634/001yp.jpg

Similar chain occurs with E*Trade Financial (US equities brokerage account), with less resistance. I will post those links separately soon.

My strategy was to make notice of my demand at mid-year, so I would clearly have some income before and some after. I intend to file an income tax form 1040, and list income prior to demand, and not report income post demand. I will include this letter [at this link: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/10/007vozz.jpg/], putting the IRS on notice of my interpretation of current Internal Revenue Code treatment of lawful money. If the IRS responds, I will have something in writing. If the IRS fails to respond, I will have a rebuttable presumption record. I choose to proceed in this fashion specifically to create a paper trail I can use to prove to others that use of lawful money is a valid defense against paying income taxes. The test is barely valid, since I am retired and have only SS and some capital gains from stock trades as income; at my overall income level, none of SS is taxable, so I am not liable for any taxes due, whether I report all income as taxable or not, but the IRS will have to respond to my letter or let the rebuttable presumption stand...

ps to DM: I do not believe BofA is paying any interest on this acct. [I have two accts there, and cannot find any entries in the bank records to show when/where/to which acct I was credited with the $11 reported by BofA on a 1099.]

[salsero]

Hi Salsero;

Please provide links and that makes it a lot easier to get started.

Oops - sorry

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/103.34

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a - this further clarifies the issue that ANY agency is required to disclose the SSN is mandatory or voluntary, the purpose, the use of and what if I do not provide the SSN what are the consequences. In the past the bank would say - its the patriot act and it is required. This is not a satisfactory response.

Also for further clarification - REGARDLESS WHETHER THE SSN IS GIVEN OR NOT TO THE BANK DOES THIS PHRASE ON THE SIGNATURE CARD NEGATE ANY AND ALL CLAIMS, INCLUDING BY COURT ORDER FOR THE REMOVAL OF ANY MONIES FROM THE ACCOUNT WITH OUT THE PERMISSION OF SIGNATORY OR OWNER OF SAID ACCOUNT:

All transactions on account are intended by Demand to be Redeemed in Lawful Money pursudant to 12 USC 411. All transactions with this bank will be done by Special Deposit NUNC PRO TUNC.

It is my understanding that anything "deposited by special deposit" is in fact under "equity" and can not be "taken or removed" without said permission of owner. Can anyone help clarify this? Thanks Tony

[David Merrill]

Here is the thread of my rather combative correspondence with Bank of America.
First, my Notice and Demand for Lawful Money, filed with the Registrar of Deeds for the county, found at this link: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/18/006dki.jpg/.
Second, my Demand Letter to BofA, found at this link: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/203/003spz.jpg/
Third, BofA First Denial Letter, found at this link: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/202/004ebl.jpg/
Fourth, my Reply to BofA Denial Letter, found at this link: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/4/002htj.jpg/
Fifth, BofA Second Denial Letter, found at this link: http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/6634/001yp.jpg

Similar chain occurs with E*Trade Financial (US equities brokerage account), with less resistance. I will post those links separately soon.

My strategy was to make notice of my demand at mid-year, so I would clearly have some income before and some after. I intend to file an income tax form 1040, and list income prior to demand, and not report income post demand. I will include this letter [at this link: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/10/007vozz.jpg/], putting the IRS on notice of my interpretation of current Internal Revenue Code treatment of lawful money. If the IRS responds, I will have something in writing. If the IRS fails to respond, I will have a rebuttable presumption record. I choose to proceed in this fashion specifically to create a paper trail I can use to prove to others that use of lawful money is a valid defense against paying income taxes. The test is barely valid, since I am retired and have only SS and some capital gains from stock trades as income; at my overall income level, none of SS is taxable, so I am not liable for any taxes due, whether I report all income as taxable or not, but the IRS will have to respond to my letter or let the rebuttable presumption stand...

ps to DM: I do not believe BofA is paying any interest on this acct. [I have two accts there, and cannot find any entries in the bank records to show when/where/to which acct I was credited with the $11 reported by BofA on a 1099.]

Thank you Freed;


I collected and trimmed your images - click Here.

At first glance it looks like there is very little purpose to filing at all. The SSI is not taxable income and you only have minimal dividends. So yours is not a very good test at all! In fact it looks like a great way to get the IRS attorneys to build testimony against redeeming lawful money. By that I mean they might cut you off from your SSI benefits just to coerce you to recant and declare this remedy bogus.

You really have to reconsider and evaluate the risk here. I really do respond on a cursory glance but that is what I see here. Like found in the first video article (1984) the Social Security is a valid income tax according to the Supreme Court - 1939. I read that case and that is probably how you have to construe it if you are starting the redemption after retirement already on SSI.

Additionally you have accomplished what the Notice and Demand are intended to do. The letters acknowledge receipt of the Notice and Demand.

I have seen this before. If all you were doing were transactions with Social Security checks then the bank would consider that the notice and demand has no legal significance. One suitor could not cash his SSI checks at the bank. They sent him down the street to the check cashing place and called before he arrived. When he got his cash, minus their cut, the teller/cashier took a Sharpie and completely blacked over his Demand! He objected but she was behind the Plexiglass and just ignored him!

So unless you have something to gain by getting involved with this Demand beyond putting non-endorsement on the backside of your paychecks, you have nothing to gain and lots to lose, in my opinion. If you make your non-endorsements then you are doing your part to reduce the national debt for America. You are a fine patriot. There is really no need to go kicking at beehives if you get my drift.

Oops - sorry

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/103.34

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a - this further clarifies the issue that ANY agency is required to disclose the SSN is mandatory or voluntary, the purpose, the use of and what if I do not provide the SSN what are the consequences. In the past the bank would say - its the patriot act and it is required. This is not a satisfactory response.

Also for further clarification - REGARDLESS WHETHER THE SSN IS GIVEN OR NOT TO THE BANK DOES THIS PHRASE ON THE SIGNATURE CARD NEGATE ANY AND ALL CLAIMS, INCLUDING BY COURT ORDER FOR THE REMOVAL OF ANY MONIES FROM THE ACCOUNT WITH OUT THE PERMISSION OF SIGNATORY OR OWNER OF SAID ACCOUNT:

All transactions on account are intended by Demand to be Redeemed in Lawful Money pursudant to 12 USC 411. All transactions with this bank will be done by Special Deposit NUNC PRO TUNC.

It is my understanding that anything "deposited by special deposit" is in fact under "equity" and can not be "taken or removed" without said permission of owner. Can anyone help clarify this? Thanks Tony

These are really very productive posts and threads!

I think you might get some insight by searching for "special deposit" both here and on your favorite search engine. My impression from earlier discussion here is that indeed the bank just becomes a repository for your money.

[Freed Gerdes]

Thanks for your prompt reply, David. And thanks for cleaning up the correspondence files, although I see that you did not include the letter to the IRS. As to my purposes, you suggest that I have little to gain and lots to lose. I perceive that I have lots to gain, as I expect to have capital gains from stock trading in the future and will likely have capital gains to avoid from conversion of other assets. Indeed, after this 1040 is filed, I would not expect that I will ever file another one. This is important to establish an income below the threshhold needed for forced compliance with Obamacare. And I have some associates that I would like to convince that they can use the 12USC411 redemption to their advantage, which will be very significant for them. So I guess I am confused as to your initial reaction. Do you expect the IRS to object to my claiming non-endorsement? Why would they? Do they not accept that redeeming lawful money is the law? Should I be afraid of my government? Certainly some people have chosen to be viewed as American Citizens rather than US Citizens on their SS-5, and they are listed by SS as Resident Aliens with Right to Work, and viewed by the IRS as non-taxpayers. Why can't I be a non-taxpayer? The tax is voluntary, so why can't I un-volunteer? And what does Social Security have to do with income taxes? Even if you redeem all your paychecks, and ask for a refund of all your income tax withholding, you will not get back your SS taxes. Can you elaborate on your concern? Thanks, Freed

[David Merrill]

Thanks for your prompt reply, David. And thanks for cleaning up the correspondence files, although I see that you did not include the letter to the IRS. As to my purposes, you suggest that I have little to gain and lots to lose. I perceive that I have lots to gain, as I expect to have capital gains from stock trading in the future and will likely have capital gains to avoid from conversion of other assets. Indeed, after this 1040 is filed, I would not expect that I will ever file another one. This is important to establish an income below the threshhold needed for forced compliance with Obamacare. And I have some associates that I would like to convince that they can use the 12USC411 redemption to their advantage, which will be very significant for them. So I guess I am confused as to your initial reaction. Do you expect the IRS to object to my claiming non-endorsement? Why would they? Do they not accept that redeeming lawful money is the law? Should I be afraid of my government? Certainly some people have chosen to be viewed as American Citizens rather than US Citizens on their SS-5, and they are listed by SS as Resident Aliens with Right to Work, and viewed by the IRS as non-taxpayers. Why can't I be a non-taxpayer? The tax is voluntary, so why can't I un-volunteer? And what does Social Security have to do with income taxes? Even if you redeem all your paychecks, and ask for a refund of all your income tax withholding, you will not get back your SS taxes. Can you elaborate on your concern? Thanks, Freed

I included the Letter to the IRS agent/attorney at the end of the file - Page 6 of 6.

Certainly some people have chosen to be viewed as American Citizens rather than US Citizens on their SS-5, and they are listed by SS as Resident Aliens with Right to Work, and viewed by the IRS as non-taxpayers. Why can't I be a non-taxpayer?

I perceive that I have lots to gain, as I expect to have capital gains from stock trading in the future and will likely have capital gains to avoid from conversion of other assets.

You plead my point quite valid. When you have something to gain, then get on it with the law.

However I am recognizing your point too. - About preventing consent into ObamaCare etc. Now that you know of remedy you are expected to apply it? That is a good point. I do not want to lead an elderly man into a situation where you are begging government for your SSI "retirement" checks. If you are attempting to redeem lawful money on your SSI checks as typical paychecks, I have reason to believe that they are not regular paychecks like most paychecks where you toil for compensation.

Look at the article:

Two years after H.J.R. 192, Congress passed the Social Security Act, which the Supreme Court upheld as a valid act imposing a valid income tax: 'Charles C. Steward Mach. Co. v, Davis' 301 U.S. 548 (1937).

I feel your supporting "Certainly" argument about non-resident aliens applied to American nationals is quite uncertain. That sort of assertion just tells the IRS agent/attorney that you are a pushover. The only suitor to be billed a $5K FrivPen after redeeming lawful money is a student of Ed RIVERA and he began integrating those "Certainly" arguments about US v USA and "Of" and "For" on the Constitution etc. just before the IRS billed him. So go figure!

I don't buy into you being "Jay" - like insinuated by a member here. [Jay ADKISSON is a Texas attorney who founded "Q" and allegely has mastered proxy IP usage as a master of cyber-disguise.] But I recognize the potential that somebody might register here and pretend that remedy has failed in order to slur remedy. So I am making clear up front that until you pull your gains liquid, you have no real need to be taking the risk. If you pull your gains right now, you will not be filing until 2014.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Freed Gerdes]

1. You will note that I do not bring up any discussion of Social Security status or Resident Alien non-taxpayer issues in my letter to IRS; there I stick to redeeming lawful money under 12USC411. What I want to establish with this filing is that I am not a state bank, do not participate in the Federal credit scam, and do not use debt obligations at all, for any reason. Since most of my banking transactions are direct deposits such that I never get a check to endorse/redeem, I chose to prove my refusal of FRN's in a blanket fashion, thus the need for the letter to the IRS. If using Federal Reserve private money/credit is the step that creates the irrecusable obligation to file a return, I want to establish that I don't take that step. I am trying to establish that I am not 'in contract' with the Federal Reserve. Is this a position fraught with risk? I had assumed from other's successful use of 411 redemption that this is settled law/policy of the IRS. Also, 12USC411 is Federal law; where does 'saving to suitors' come into play in exercising the remedy provided there? Can't a 'US Citizen' redeem FRN's? In your conversation with Michael Joseph (see ps) you imply anyone can/should do it...

2. "You plead my point quite valid. When you have something to gain, then get on it with the law."

The IRS has been bleeding my substance for 40 years, and is presently doing the same to my son. If there is a valid way to escape the irrecusable obligation, I want to find it and demonstrate that it is accepted by the IRS. I realize that the IRS is not pleased with taxpayers figuring out how they have been scammed, and learning how to escape the banker's debt trap, so they may push back some, but my return is not frivolous. It is based on a reasonable interpretation of 411. The fact that I would not owe any tax with or without redemption makes it even less frivolous (ie, no attempt to evade), thus providing me with an opportunity to look into the mind of the beast with little at stake. e.g. I have a $450 capital gain paid after I noticed my banks to redeem; if it were reported, I would be required to file a Schedule B form, but I do not file a Sch B. If I like the IRS response to this filing, I will have documented evidence to convince my son to risk using this approach where more tax obligation is at stake.

3. "If you are attempting to redeem lawful money on your SSI checks as typical paychecks, I have reason to believe that they are not regular paychecks like most paychecks where you toil for compensation." Look at the article:

I had asked you previously about the link between SS and the income tax. I fail to see how they are related. (and the article you linked to does not discuss this issue at all). Further I fail to see how the source of income to me alters in any way the remedy of redeeming FRN's. The SS program involves paying into it at 6% of wages for 40 quarters (or did when I was paying in), and results in a calculated 'benefit' payment at retirement age. The payments are assumed to be in FRN's, but what I do with them is no concern of SSAdmin, or is it?

4. I don't buy into you being "Jay"

Thanks for that vote of confidence; I missed the implication when JC posted it, not knowing Jay. The pretend/apparent anonymous status of internet communication creates the possibility of many nefarious miscommunications, intentional, treacherous, or otherwise. I am not Jay, don't believe in deception as a positive policy, and have no intention of trying to 'make redemption fail' so I can slur it. I will be happy to have you contact the idiot at Bank of America if you think I made up the story of their 'resistance.'

5. you have no real need to be taking the risk.

I remain unclear on the risk involved here. Obviously the IRS is stepping up their bullying tactics to discourage taxpayers from using returns as fishing expeditions to unravel the basis for the tax 'duty' (see Irwin Schiff case). Since the redemption remedy is created in the Federal law, I doubt the IRS would risk a fraudulent mis-statement about the effect of the law. As JC noted, they don't want to go there... and SSAdmin's own rules show that benefits, once established, are not affected even by expatriation. So if there is some other link between SS and income tax, I am unaware of it, and would appreciate you pointing it out to me.

Thanks for your comments, and best regards,
Freed
ps your conversation with Michael Joseph posted on the Casey Research site was good, and thorough.

[David Merrill]

Is this a position fraught with risk?

I may be overcautious because the position has an unknown. The SSI paychecks are considered a valid income tax by the Supreme Court in 1937 and I checked the case and it is so stated. Therefore I want you to be aware that an angry IRS agent might cut off your SSI checks without ever addressing redemption of lawful money. I don't know that - like I say, it is an unknown.

I do not want to be the guy leading you into a mess.

You sound like you know what you are doing and I want to help you do what is right as far a correct and just balances and reducing the national debt, abolishing the Fed and so forth. If you want to do so on the knowledge presented on these forums and beyond then thank you for sharing the experience with us.

When you say that the IRS has been bleeding you for decades do you mean you have been paying income tax and filing returns for refunds? I suppose that is what puts me on edge more than anything - that you have been doing that through signature endorsement and ignorance of the lawful remedy. What I do not want to find is that you project anger into your process and therefore find an unjust and arbitrary, capricious and even angry response back from the Fed's IRS, rather than a kind and in kind remedy granted by the Treasury, willing to help you do the right thing; recognizing your position and character as the rightful heir to the truth and beauty that is waiting for you and your estate to claim.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Freed Gerdes]

1. The SSI paychecks are considered a valid income tax by the Supreme Court in 1937

Your syntax stopped me there; SSI checks are income, which may be taxed or not, depending upon other income. The SSI tax on wages is a valid income tax. OK, I paid it when I had wages. Now I don't have wages, so don't pay any SSI tax, but I do receive SSI monthly payments. Does the IRS run Social Security? I understand that they check with SSAdmin to confirm SS#'s, and 'US Citizen' status, but beyond that I don't know the relationship between SS and income tax. I believe SSAdmin is in the Dept of Labor, while the IRS is a corporation, not a division of the government, and the nexus of the two organizations is at the St Louis Fed.

2. an angry IRS agent might cut off your SSI checks

No one abuses power worse than a petty bureaucrat, and angry people often do rash things. So dealing with bureaucrats always involves a certain element of danger. I have attempted to structure this planned encounter so as to minimize the danger, but there is no way to tell the IRS I don't want to pay taxes without them taking a certain offense at this position. I perceive that the income tax is an excise tax either on being a state bank or obligating myself to the interest on any Federal credit I endorse. Either way, it appears reasonable to conclude that refusing to be a state bank, and/or refusing to endorse Federal Reserve credit eliminates the voluntary step that creates the irrecusable duty to file a return and pay a tax. Me knowing this and using it to reduce/eliminate my income tax obligation could be disappointing to the IRS, but I wouldn't imagine that it will make them furiously mad, particularly since I don't owe any taxes. Their only concern would be that I use this knowledge to help others avoid their duty to pay taxes. Hell, half the returns filed either don't pay any tax (get full refund) or get back more than they paid in. But I understand your concern there, and I appreciate it myself.

3. When you say that the IRS has been bleeding you for decades

What I mean is that the IRS has stolen almost $400,000 from me over my working career through fraud and deception, by my endorsing Fed credit and paying taxes, from which I did not get any refunds. In their defense, there was never any reason to expect honorable behavior from shyster lawyers, especially those working for the government. Like most folks who work for a living, my job kept me busy enough, and kept me focussed on chemistry, process equipment, and environmental law, so I never had time to investigate tax law. Now that I have time to study it, and helpful websites such as this one, I see that the 'voluntary' nature of the income tax can be detected, and the duty can be avoided. It is too late to help me, but not too late for my children. So I am willing to make the initial contact with the IRS and test this remedy. You may have concluded from my letters to BofA that I can be pretty snide when dealing with liars, but I thought I was careful to be neutral and animus-free in my letter to the IRS (and I do not intend to share the BofA letters with the IRS). Do you detect hostility in my syntax there? Certainly the Notice and Demand itself displays undertones that imply that I don't trust the people I am making the demand to, but it is merely covering the necessary legal ground, not trying to be hostile (and I mostly copied it from one posted on this site). It is hard to maintain any respect for people who have made a career out of fraud and deceit, but I can keep my feelings to myself long enough to conduct this step of the remedy. Redemption under 411 is the law, and I am just exercising my rights (rights that you don't exercise you don't actually have).

Thanks for your helpful comments and concerns. I have a pretty good idea of what I am doing, and am willing to share the experience.

Best Regards,

Freed

[David Merrill]

What I mean is that the IRS has stolen almost $400,000 from me over my working career through fraud and deception, by my endorsing Fed credit and paying taxes, from which I did not get any refunds.

I could Reply with Quote to seal the record so to speak. You have expressed for us forethought and knowledge. Thank you.

I might suggest then that you settle your heart in peace before you begin. Please examine the 834 Form. As you sign the 834 Form use the Stamp. I would get it notarized and have a Commission Certificate ($5) from the Secretary of State too. File it in a Miscellaneous Case with the USDC before or as you file it with the IRS. It will express either the amount they owe you in order for you to forgive, or that you have (hopefully) already forgiven the IRS and Federal Reserve for being part of your miscreation and misteachings that have injured you.

This has to come from your heart. I am assuring you that what you project out there will reflect upon you. You decide if this should be done before or as you file your tax return.