If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. If you would like to post in these forums please send a PM directly to David Merrill.
All transactions on PayPal and elsewhere are demanded to be redeemed in lawful money as found in Section 16 of the Fed Act and at Title 12 USC 411.
Thank you so much for enjoying StSC! If you are getting popups please try clearing your browser cache.
This makes sense, since most of us signed for the SS card when we were minors.... not able to contract. I think I was 14?
I have been through Dave Minor's IMF correction...they did change my MFR, mail filing requirement to 1...no return required to be mailed or filed. They still are up to their old tricks though.
I agree, the IMF is their "system of records" , everything they do is based off of it. All transactions must first be inputted into the IMF.... it is the source.
The SS# is the mark of the beast, IMHO.
The real hitch with all that, as I saw recently in to trial transcript, is the IRS agent on the stand will tell the jury that notation means that the IRS is not required to mail out the 1040 Form to the taxpayer. If you ask, the IRS agent will say he or she is qualified to decode IMF's.
Hopefully somebody reading can jog my memory about that transcript so I can find where I filed it?
I have been through Dave Minor's IMF correction...they did change my MFR, mail filing requirement to 1...no return required to be mailed or filed. They still are up to their old tricks though.
Perhaps a different method is in order?
The IMF is in code; therefore, the translation books will be in order.
Were all parties notified including government, the Pope, and Queen of England?
Well, auntie was their typical non-responsive selves per my IMF correction demands. The VAL-1 one is a major error and everyone has it in their file....it says that the TIN is incorrect for the account, so the account should be frozen until an investigation is done. Auntie is not supposed input anything into that account until the matter is cleared, BUT they do! ( the 6209 manual and the IRM have all the controlling factors written out. There is no interpretation needed, it is there in black and white for the minions to follow)
MFR-1=01 Return not required to be mailed or filed....from the 6209 manual, but I digress.
Check this out...3.17.243.2 (10-01-2009) Reversal of Erroneous Abatements
1. General - This section provides instructions for overriding Master File computer programming that prevents the reversal of abatement transactions after the Statute of Limitations for Assessment has expired.
How do you like that? They even give instructions on how to override the Master File......tampering? you bet....but I digress. A lot of this is discussed over at Codebusters. A lot of discussion about the IMF and the codes they contain.
Well, auntie was their typical non-responsive selves per my IMF correction demands. The VAL-1 one is a major error and everyone has it in their file....it says that the TIN is incorrect for the account, so the account should be frozen until an investigation is done. Auntie is not supposed input anything into that account until the matter is cleared, BUT they do! ( the 6209 manual and the IRM have all the controlling factors written out. There is no interpretation needed, it is there in black and white for the minions to follow)
MFR-1=01 Return not required to be mailed or filed....from the 6209 manual, but I digress.
Check this out...3.17.243.2 (10-01-2009) Reversal of Erroneous Abatements
1. General - This section provides instructions for overriding Master File computer programming that prevents the reversal of abatement transactions after the Statute of Limitations for Assessment has expired.
How do you like that? They even give instructions on how to override the Master File......tampering? you bet....but I digress. A lot of this is discussed over at Codebusters. A lot of discussion about the IMF and the codes they contain.
People have been pushing this IMF proposal in my direction for many years now. Here is a big hitch with it. You will never get your decryption past Rules of Evidence in tax court. Even a criminal prosecution will never let it get into evidence. - Not the decryption. So you would need to summon an IRS agent qualified to decrypt the IMF under oath on the witness stand.
I managed to get my IMF onto the record in a TC case. The judge asked respondent,"Well it is your record, correct? admitted." Of course respondent hates it when you get their IMF on record.
This was an NOD case , but there was no code in the iMF stating that a statutory NOD had been issued (TC494). That is not my interpretation, it is the 6209 manual....their manual. As you know , no NOD, no juris. My case did not rest on this ,but many other errors. The lack of NOD in IMF was just one.
I managed to get my IMF onto the record in a TC case. The judge asked respondent,"Well it is your record, correct? admitted." Of course respondent hates it when you get their IMF on record.
This was an NOD case , but there was no code in the iMF stating that a statutory NOD had been issued (TC494). That is not my interpretation, it is the 6209 manual....their manual. As you know , no NOD, no juris. My case did not rest on this ,but many other errors. The lack of NOD in IMF was just one.
I cannot follow you because I do not know what the initials mean.
Sorry, TDL @ codebusters is brilliant at decoding the IMF, But uses more acronyms than I have ever seen! So , I immediately knew what u were talking about.
Remember, the IMF is the CONTROLLING SOURCE RECORD for auntie... If a transaction code does not appear on that record, it does not exist, or was created OUTSIDE of the IMF....an illegal entry.But I digress..LOL
Lately I have heard mention of decrypting the IMF and then prosecuting for lack of Assessment Authority as stated in the IR Code.
Of course respondent hates it when you get their IMF on record.
Respondent - to a counterclaim?
In Tax Court (BTW...I do not recommend going there!! it is for "taxpayers" only) you are the Petitioner and auntie is the Respondent.
As far as prosecuting for lack of assessment authority... did they sue the agent individually or auntie?
I have evidence that the agents in my case were not authorized to make any assessments, a FOIA showed they were clerks! You also have to be a GS9 paygrade or above.... the agents in my case were GS7.
In Tax Court (BTW...I do not recommend going there!! it is for "taxpayers" only) you are the Petitioner and auntie is the Respondent.
As far as prosecuting for lack of assessment authority... did they sue the agent individually or auntie?
I have evidence that the agents in my case were not authorized to make any assessments, a FOIA showed they were clerks! You also have to be a GS9 paygrade or above.... the agents in my case were GS7.
Ok, started to read your book, thanks for sharing. So, the IRS is acting in admiralty law collecting for the International Monetary Fund ( Funny, it has the same acronym as Individual Master File..IMF....coincidence?)??
People have been pushing this IMF proposal in my direction for many years now. Here is a big hitch with it. You will never get your decryption past Rules of Evidence in tax court. Even a criminal prosecution will never let it get into evidence. - Not the decryption. So you would need to summon an IRS agent qualified to decrypt the IMF under oath on the witness stand.
I see fixing the IMF to avoid court, not to enter it.
If one is in Tax Court beyond pleading, she or he just plead into the status of as taxpayer.
The question then becomes not if one is a liable for a tax, but how much.
Ok, started to read your book, thanks for sharing. So, the IRS is acting in admiralty law collecting for the International Monetary Fund ( Funny, it has the same acronym as Individual Master File..IMF....coincidence?)??
Administrative, Civil, Criminal, Admiralty
Not the IRS... taxes ...
Taxes have been under admiralty since before the Revolution.
This all has its roots in smuggling and avoiding the King's dues.
The King could not sustain any convictions in Common Law courts of the colonists, so he moved the cases and jurisdictions to Admiralty/Vice-Admiralty/Maritime courts.
Tweet
Comment