Leave 1040 Line 74(a) Blank?

[Moxie]

A 'Notary' does not attest to the facts/claims written on the paper. I can claim to be 'Donald Duck' and have it 'notarized' - big deal.

This is how I comprehend it, too.

I may double-dog dare myself to get a doc notarized claiming I am Donald Duck and post it here, just for laffs. This place could use some.

Next extra $10 I have...lol

[David Merrill]

I feel like you are changing the subject. You cannot claim to be Donald Duck and have it notarized. I was talking about a notary attesting to a human man or woman signing in front of him or herself in the official capacity of a notary.

To avoid arguing about your definition of common law, I like Black's Fifth. Here in Colorado we have such standing from the Territorial Laws of 1861 as found in the State Archives:

...or from the judgments and decrees of the courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs; and in this sense, particularly the ancient unwritten law of England.

A 'Notary' does not attest to the facts/claims written on the paper. I can claim to be 'Donald Duck' and have it 'notarized' - big deal.

Without first-hand testimony verification that what is written on paper is true, paper has no power in a common law court of record.

[allodial]

In a code/statutory/legalese court, paper forms the record. In a common law court, the record is formed viva voce. Memorialization still requires verification else it is just ink on paper.

U.S. Tax Court is probably moreso akin to the ancient Court of the Exchequer rather than otherwise. Shall we bring rope and gallows to a game of Monopoly? Or perhaps a Catherine Wheel?

[David Merrill]

This is accomplished through notarization (with Commission Certificate). The notary verifies that there is a human signor.


P.S. We often verify a man or woman signor with a red thumbprint too.

Its evidence.



Blank paper or paper with writing on it? Writing is considered to be a memoralization (of testimony, agreemeent, etc.). Oral testimony for ceremonial or 'shoring up' is another matter.

In a code/statutory/legalese court, paper forms the record. In a common law court, the record is formed viva voce. Memorialization still requires verification else it is just ink on paper.

[allodial]

Wouldn't that equation change if you had photocopies of every paycheck where you demanded lawful money of the U.S.?

Its evidence.

Paper is meaningless and powerless without living voice verification of what is written upon it; only man can testify, claim and verify.

Blank paper or paper with writing on it? Writing is considered to be a memoralization (of testimony, agreemeent, etc.). Oral testimony for ceremonial or 'shoring up' is another matter.

Wouldn't that equation change if you had photocopies of every paycheck where you demanded lawful money of the U.S.?

Paper is meaningless and powerless without living voice verification of what is written upon it; only man can testify, claim and verify.

[Brian]

Then, people are told to 'petition' the 'Tax Court' if they disagree with the assessment. The 'Petitioner' becomes the 'Plaintiff' (complainer) and must prove a negative (I do not owe...). The 'Defendant' ['IRS'] need not appear or testify.

Instead, require the original claimant appear and verify the claim of debt. No first hand testimony and/or verification, no case.

Wouldn't that equation change if you had photocopies of every paycheck where you demanded lawful money of the U.S.?

Then, people are told to 'petition' the 'Tax Court' if they disagree with the assessment. The 'Petitioner' becomes the 'Plaintiff' (complainer) and must prove a negative (I do not owe...). The 'Defendant' ['IRS'] need not appear or testify.

Instead, require the original claimant appear and verify the claim of debt. No first hand testimony and/or verification, no case.

[allodial]

I take the 1040 as a confession/assessment--its an affidavit to be used as evidence in U.S. Tax Court. On the other hand, when the IRS sends a notice of deficiency it is not yet an assessment until there is agreement. The U.S. Treasurer deals with funds committed to public use. Until there is assessment, the U.S. Treasurer has nothing to expect. Where there is a refund due, the U.S. Treasurer would be holding private property not subject to assessment and might like to know what to do with it.

[David Merrill]

That's right! Emotions aside - there is no down side from here.

[allodial]

Kurt way of saying: "Revenue Agent you failed to follow instructions, thread is loose...prepare to be fined."

[David Merrill]

Thank you Doug555;


Your post is being considered carefully. It should be easy enough to amend the 1040 Form and as such with proper record of it. Thanks for your help with this.

[doug555]

This suitor intuitively neglected to make a Claim for a Refund by leaving Item 74(a) blank. Therefore the IRS Agent who sent the Letter is doubly in error to threaten a $5K FrivPen.

[As I develop "flutter" from dither and toggle applied to the Five Cube Sum Number Locks I gain some useful insight into Artificial Intuition.]

I developed the Title 12 Citations a little so to complete a more-rounded and better developed Claim in Yehoshuah H'Natzrith H'Massiach - natzar being BRANCH, David's coronation name. This assembles a great mental model around Archelaus being KING while Antipas and Philip were only TETRARCHs in Israel.

So this Counterclaim (attached) is designed to be heard, meaning that it will be served on the Attorney General as well according to the FRCP whereas the typical Libel of Review is dismissed and designed to set up an evidence repository for future Refusals for Cause. This new Counterclaim does both.


Enjoy,

David Merrill.

IMO, the 1040 return in question certainly appears to be "frivolous" even though it technically may not be by IRS specs.

Leaving Line 74a blank certainly leaves the return "unfinished" and creates uncertainty about what the IRS should do with this return.

IMO, this kind of return has too many blanks and zeroes in it. It is NOT a typical and completed return.

See this post and realize that this return is missing all of the other transactions that should be "redeemed" as derivatives of the gross income transaction.

IMO, this return should be corrected and resubmitted to avoid tarnishing and defaming the "lawful money demand reduction" by association.

Questions:
1. Did this Suitor study all of the items in the "1040 Help" post before submitting this return?
2. If not, why not?
3. Is so, why did s/he not extend the courtesy of posting questions to this blog so senior members could prevent these sort of "frivolous penalty" letters from even being issued and possibly muddying the water for the rest of us who have been do this without repercussions?

P.S. Yes, I am upset by this type of return... It is detrimental to the cause here.