IRS inquiry: Do incorrect 1099s need rebuttal?

[Guest]

certified mail green card shows IRS received it November 5th.

[EZrhythm]

Since you made your "demand", technically no rebuttal necessary but a return will still need to be filed and it may result in an audit. The path that leads to the least aggravations would be to rebut any 1099's and any other information returns.

[JohnnyCash]

A return is required if I have income above the statutory exemption amount, yes. But I believe these restrictively endorsed checks are not income under the Revenue Acts of Congress. Therefore if I have no statutory income and nothing is withheld from my pay there is no need to file.

[JohnnyCash]

I'd like to report that 30 days have passed with no response received to my inquiry.

[David Merrill]

Well put, John!

[Treefarmer]

A return is required if I have income above the statutory exemption amount, yes. But I believe these restrictively endorsed checks are not income under the Revenue Acts of Congress. Therefore if I have no statutory income and nothing is withheld from my pay there is no need to file.

In my experience, ANYTHING that gets reported to the IRS on an information return such as 1099 or W-2 or any other such form, is taxable income.
What you redeem that taxable income for AFTER you receive it is your business, but first the IRS will require you to pay tax on it.
The contract nexus is the bank, which is the "trade or business" with the US.

I don't keep showing this document because of any remedy it may or may not contain, but because it does such an excellent job of documenting HOW one becomes a taxpayer slave.
To get free of income tax, one must have no bank accounts.

[JohnnyCash]

Yes, as a CtC-reader I'm aware of the custom "trade or business" definition. I would agree that anything reported on an info return such as a 1099 or W2 carries the PRESUMPTION of taxable income. Enough presumption for the IRS to run with, enough for the IRS to attempt to convince you you've made taxable income. Conditioning. Don't forget this is a scam run by banksters in conjunction with US government. As my letter of inquiry above reveals... these presumptions are mere hearsay, you have a right to be heard regarding the true nature of these payments.

In my experience the determinant of taxable income is endorsement of Federal Reserve credit. That is the contract nexus. I say this because I have bank accounts, correction, my PERSON has bank accounts, but I have been unmolested by the IRS for five (5) years because I deposit LAWFUL MONEY into those bank accounts via restricted endorsement. I am non-contracting. I have also seen with my own eyes, a corporation fully-ensnared in the matrix, who paid payroll taxes late and assessed penalties by statute because of it, threatened with levy, who then filed Form 843 with evidence OF HAVING REDEEMED LAWFUL MONEY ... and won. The IRS backed down. They didn't want to go there. I have repeatedly seen the Feds not want to touch this issue of "Fed Reserve credit v. lawful money" with a ten foot pole. Says something, doesn't it. Lawful money remedy works for PERSONs and Corporations too.

Treefarmer, if the IRS is pursuing you for a period when you actually were endorsing Federal Reserve credit, well then, your options are limited. After all, you or your ENTITY was contracting wasn't it? Albeit a non-disclosed, hidden contract. You might sue for "fraud by omission" or hint at it anyway. After all, the IRS doesn't know exactly when you started redeeming lawful money. Can you imagine a lawsuit where the taxpayer was asked "on what date did you first restrictively endorse a check into lawful money?" NOT GONNA HAPPEN. I submit to you they absolutely cannot have any sort of this talk on the record, it would admit the scam. Therefore you might bluff them into a stand-down victory... with just the threat of a lawsuit.

[JohnnyCash]

I just received a Form 1099-MISC for 2012. As you know, this Box 7 amount is reported to the IRS and carries the presumption of statutory income. But it isn't, I redeemed lawful money the whole year. So I may have a complete success story to show later. Unfortunately this may take awhile to develop. The banksters/IRS won't know anything's amiss until April 15th when no matching Form 1040 (return of income) is filed.

[Chex]

Treefarmer, if the IRS is pursuing you for a period when you actually were endorsing Federal Reserve credit, well then, your options are limited.

Absolutely Not. Wrong Wrong Wrong.

[mikecz]

I just received a Form 1099-MISC for 2012. As you know, this Box 7 amount is reported to the IRS and carries the presumption of statutory income. But it isn't, I redeemed lawful money the whole year. So I may have a complete success story to show later. Unfortunately this may take awhile to develop. The banksters/IRS won't know anything's amiss until April 15th when no matching Form 1040 (return of income) is filed.

Sooo Johnny,

Basically what you are saying, the 1099 was given to you by a client, or "payer". With its receipt, you take that 1099 and fill in your 1040, I think line 12 in this case. The payer is just following his instructions, filling out a 1099 is part of filing his taxes. This is basically giving you a packaged amount to fill in your 1040 form. That money was paid to you, and is assumed to be private credit. Lets say for argument, the payer, unknowing about lawful money, between his ears assumed as much. Upon receipt of each payment, you had stamped your non endorsement, lawful money only. I see this 1099 more as an instruction to you how much was filed in your name or person. What you did or do with the money from that point on is what is filled in your tax return.

Ok now, 2 questions...

1.) Where/how are you filing in your tax form to indicate you received this money as lawful money? Are you even recognizing receipt of it on your return?

2.) I have an LLC, and basically pay myself. Is there a way to short circuit this mess and pay myself in lawful money (i.e. indicate that the written check is lawful money)

Thanks Johnny, this is a real world example, and you are definitely moving the ball forward.

[David Merrill]

I see it as Notice and Demand. But it is to the IRS which means it is limited. I believe that the IRS agents get guideline memorandums and last I checked these are no longer available for us as laymen to view. I find that encouraging.

This may be a little off point from the thread but I want to show you something. This is an indication of how one might be able to summon a response from the IRS attorneys through the federal court. I am using this process toward getting compliance toward settling a lien so I will be quiet about the details there. However you might get something out of these filings and the code too.

or upon the application of any interested person and may direct that the testimony or statement be given, or the document or other thing be produced, before a person appointed by the court. By virtue of his appointment, the person appointed has power to administer any necessary oath and take the testimony or statement. The order may prescribe the practice and procedure, which may be in whole or part the practice and procedure of the foreign country or the international tribunal, for taking the testimony or statement or producing the document or other thing. To the extent that the order does not prescribe otherwise, the testimony or statement shall be taken, and the document or other thing produced, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A person may not be compelled to give his testimony or statement or to produce a document or other thing in violation of any legally applicable privilege.


(b) This chapter does not preclude a person within the United States from voluntarily giving his testimony or statement, or producing a document or other thing, for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal before any person and in any manner acceptable to him.

This came up with people in NY and elsewhere having trouble filing a Miscellaneous Case Jacket for an evidence repository for Notice and Demand (to redeem lawful money) like shown around here. So I used the PACER search engine to look up Miscellaneous Case usage and to conform the rules so that these new suitors could get their Notice and Demand published, therefore they can serve a certified copy on their bank instead of hassling with a Signature Card novation.

So you got it right if you figured it out on your own here. You want your Notice on Demand on the front page after your quick Application for whatever. In this case you want a correspondence back from the IRS. In a NY suitor's example he wants a response to the Notice and Demand ordered by the federal judge - from GEITHNER and BERNANKE too!

It does not matter if you get your response though. The purpose is that you get your Notice and Demand on the record in the "exclusive original cognizance" of the US government so that you can use it in your court at your pleasure.

These attachments gave me an example of something that the clerk of court would recognize and file, giving the suitor an evidence repository.

[allodial]

You can always put in default responses--as in tell them what they are agreeing to if they don't reply--I'd be reasonable. I have issued demands for reply and have gotten them in exactly the time required. I have even gotten requests for more time to reply. I don't take an antagonistic approach with the IRS agents. Many of them are quite helpful and can be quite kind people. However, if they fail to reply you can simply follow up with your concept of what they are agreeing to and file it in a case jacket. If the USDC Clerk is shy about taking the other papers, the memo might not seem so 'scary'.

I have taken the perspective much like this: that in some way or another they work for me and so I help both the IRS agents and "clients" by getting matters resolved peacefully (ala conservator of the peace).

I see it as Notice and Demand. But it is to the IRS which means it is limited. I believe that the IRS agents get guideline memorandums and last I checked these are no longer available for us as laymen to view. I find that encouraging.

Yeah those memos can be handy. Like one that hinted at an "individual" being a trust. Nonetheless, one can keep an eye out for changes to the Internal Revenue Manual.

***

Re: 1099s. A 1099 doesn't necessarily evidence taxable income. It can simply indicate that some kind of 'flow' took place. It doesn't indicate that the amount in question was profit. A record of redemption for lawful money should serve as evidence in case of an audit. I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Keywords: Gross income, taxable income, capital receipt, revenue receipt.

[JohnnyCash]

I notice the Form itself tells you the IRS has no procedure for recipient to correct an incorrect 1099:

Form 1099-MISC Incorrect? If this form is incorrect or has been issued in error, contact the payer. If you cannot get this form corrected, attach an explanation to your tax return and report your income correctly.

It's up to you, the recipient, to determine the correct amount of income; the 1099 is just a 3rd party hearsay report (and also a bit of social engineering; conditioning). If I redeemed lawful money all year the correct amount of income (under the Revenue Acts of Congress) is zero. And since nothing was withheld there is no need to file a return.

Hi Mike, I have worked for myself for years. About 2008-09 I discovered David Merrill and began redeeming lawful money. I managed to get most of the 1099 reporting to stop and stopped filing after 2008. No issues. I actually wanted a 1099-MISC this year to prove that one can win this despite "reporting." So the answer to 1) is: no, I don't even recognize receipt of it. I won't even file.

2) You and the LLC are 2 separate entities. I don't see any way to short circuit. The LLC issues payment (a check, presumably) and then the payee gets to choose whether to endorse private credit of the Federal Reserve, or redeem lawful money.

I suspect the way this normally plays out: first a cordial letter from the IRS asking if I forgot something, inviting me to file. And then probably more threatening notices to intimidate me. Unless I am already on their radar as a leave this one alone. I do have an evidence repository setup - David helped me file the LoR - so I'm well prepared for whatever they throw at me. I'll keep you updated.

[allodial]

I notice the Form itself tells you the IRS has no procedure for recipient to correct an incorrect 1099

If you believe the issuer of the form is committing fraud there are forms for things like that too. If A claims to have paid B $10,000 when A only paid $1,500, B can demand the correction and cc the local IRS office on the communications. If A fails to correct, B can file an appropriate claim form.

The IRS Form 3949-A "Information Referral" seems to be appropriate to the above topic.

[Chex]

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f13909.pdf

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/usps-immune-local-traffic-laws-165944476.html