Get Your Billions Back, America: 2014

[ag maniac]

Don't be so quick to jump into that wet cement.

What "other area"?

And why might this other area not also include your demands for "lawful money and full discharge on all transactions" ?

[David Neil]

I did not start redeeming until March so I guess that amount came from un-redeemed income

[GratefulDave]

Frivoulous 1040 return - should have read JohnnyCash instructions

Thank you JohnnyCash for your posts on how to fill out line 21. I received a "frivoulous" return notice from the IRS on my second year of filing because I overstated the demand for lawful money which put my AGI in a negative position. I am going to file amended 1040 with lesser amount on line 21. Will keep forum posted on how this goes. Thank all of you.

[ag maniac]

Well, my point here is don't guess

Be sure of what you've done & stand by it.....or.....be sure you've made a mistake on that return.

Has IRS justified the $100 discrepancy descriptively....or is that number just thrown out there to create a doubt in your mind as to your Lawful Money return.....i.e. an offer to recontract?

Anyone else wanna pipe in ?

[David Neil]

You are quite right about guessing. I was truly overwhelmed with my refund, however. It was VERY large and 100 was nothing and I was just thankful that Lawful Money redemption worked without question, this was my first return. I have taken the time to actually read the IRS letter. The error was my mistake. On line 65 I added 100 to the amount of tax I paid in for some 1099 work. They corrected and therein lay the issue. I am still waiting for a very large refund from the state.

[ag maniac]

Well, good on you David Neil !!

Durn tootin' that LM return works !!!!!!


Thank you David Merrill et al !!

[David Neil]

Looks like the Oregon Revenue Dept. is going to gum up the works. Even though the Oregon Income Tax is predicated on the your taxable income from the Federal Return, they are questioning Lawful Money deduction I claimed on line 21 of the 1040. Just got off the phone with them. I explained to them what it was but of course they need to investigate. I put this return in in early Feb. and they have never sent me anything asking for more information. I can't believe this is the first LM return they have received and they need to investigate. Anyone ever file in Oregon?

[David Neil]

Oregon has "disallowed" my lawful money reduction. They are asking for quotes for the IRS code which shows that lawful money is deductible. Are there any specifics that someone can guide me to?

[Brian]

Oregon has "disallowed" my lawful money reduction. They are asking for quotes for the IRS code which shows that lawful money is deductible. Are there any specifics that someone can guide me to?

"From its earliest days, the Supreme Court has indicated that direct taxes include capitations and real property taxes at a minimum.24
The Court has also suggested that other types of taxes might be considered direct,25 although the Court did not find any such examples 26 until the
Pollock case in 1895."

Footnote 26: "26 See Hylton, 3 U.S. at 175 (upholding unapportioned tax on carriages); Pacific Insurance Co. v. Soule, 74 U.S. 433
(1869) (upholding tax on the business of insurance); Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. 533 (1869) (upholding tax on bank
notes); Scholey v. Rew, 90 U.S. 331 (1875) (upholding inheritance tax); Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881)
(upholding income tax)."

From: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40725.pdf

Tell them your time given to your employer was paid in money issued directly from the U.S. Treasury and not in bank credit issued by a bank! Veazie Bank v. Fenno!

When your time is paid in money issued under article 1 section 8 clause 2 (USN's) or 5 (coin) it is subject to the direct tax clauses.

When your time is discharged with bank credit issued by any bank operating under the federal reserve act it is subject to the excise tax or duty on contracts, on income upheld in Springer and explained in Veazie Bank.

[David Merrill]

Oregon has "disallowed" my lawful money reduction. They are asking for quotes for the IRS code which shows that lawful money is deductible. Are there any specifics that someone can guide me to?

This is interesting - the approach. Can you sanitize the letter and scan it for us?

[doug555]

Oregon has "disallowed" my lawful money reduction. They are asking for quotes for the IRS code which shows that lawful money is deductible. Are there any specifics that someone can guide me to?

Please provide the redacted letter for us. It is important to know the exact wording of this challenge.

IMO, there is NO "deduction" for LM in the IRC.

Why?

Because the entire IRC only applies to FRNs - private credit of the FRS - as incurred by the usage of same.

The IRS rightly only allows "deductions" for FRN usage. "Deduction" is a FRN-based term, IMO. DON'T USE IT!

LM amounts received are "non-income", that is, amounts that are not to be included in the FRN-based term called "income". This is why Line 21 of the 1040 is used to "reduce" the FRN-based "income" amount.

Let me refer you to David Merrill's article "Public Money vs Private Credit".

Notice in particular David's insightful statements below:

On page 1 of 4:
"Our federal personal income tax is not really a tax in the ordinary sense of the word but rather a burden or obligation which the taxpayer voluntarily assumes, and the burden of the tax falls upon those who voluntarily use private credit. Simply stated, the tax imposed is a charge or fee upon the use of private credit where the amount of private credit used measures the pecuniary obligation.

On page 2 of 4:
A Taxpayer is allowed to claim a $1000 personal deduction when filing his return. The average taxpayer in the course of a year uses United States coins in vending machines, parking meters, small change, etc, and this public money must be deducted when computing the charge for using private credit.

Let me also refer you to http://lawfulmoney.blogspot.com/p/usn-not-taxable.html which illustrates that instruments "employed by the government [17 U.S. 316, 437] of the Union to carry its powers into execution" [Unites States Notes] are not taxable.

The US Supreme Court, in M'CULLOCH v. STATE, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) at 17 U.S. 316, 476, states that "imposing a tax on the Bank of the United States, is unconstitutional and void."

And further, it states that "a tax on the operation of an instrument employed by the government [17 U.S. 316, 437] of the Union to carry its powers into execution. Such a tax must be unconstitutional."

M'CULLOCH v. STATE, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) at 17 U.S. 316
The court has bestowed on this subject its most deliberate consideration. The result is a conviction that the states have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control, the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the general government. This is, we think, the unavoidable consequence of that supremacy which the constitution has declared. We are unanimously of opinion, that the law passed by the legislature of Maryland, imposing a tax on the Bank of the United States, is unconstitutional and void.

This opinion does not deprive the states of any resources which they originally possessed. It does not extend to a tax paid by the real property of the bank, in common with the other real property within the state, nor to a tax imposed on the interest which the citizens of Maryland may hold in this institution, in common with other property of the same description throughout the state. But this is a tax on the operations of the bank, and is, consequently, a tax on the operation of an instrument employed by the government [17 U.S. 316, 437] of the Union to carry its powers into execution. Such a tax must be unconstitutional.

So, beware of falling into the trap of letting any agency, state or federal, getting you to agree that a LM "deduction" on a 1040 Form is not "allowed" simply because LM is not mentioned as a "deduction" in the IRC.

LM in not in the IRC because it is outside the scope and jurisdiction of the IRC and the private FRS.

This jurisdictional line-in-the-sand is Divinely enforced by Mt 22:20-21.

20 And He said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" 21 They said to Him, "Caesar's." Then He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."

LM is solely a "reduction" to the amount rightly-assumed to be "income" on Line 7 and other lines, because it is an amount that was declared explicitly on the record as transacted in Lawful Money per 12 USC 411, for which you have substantive evidence per FRE 803(6) that is unrebuttable, IF you followed the instructions at http://1040relief.blogspot.com/p/getting-started.html, namely:

lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)

LM is NOT a "deduction". Beware of "word-crafting" traps!

P.S. I recommend that you join David's new website at: http://www.lawfulmoneytrust.com/

[David Neil]

So far there is no letter. I was contacted by phone. It all began last week after having waited these many months since filing that I had not received my refund. Checking the web site they informed me that the form was being processed manually. I called and the attendant said they would make an inquiry. If I had not received any further requests for information in a weeks time, to call back. I waited a week, called back and the new attendant said there were no responses to their inquiry in the system and that she would have a supervisor contact the people handling the the manual audit. That very day, yesterday, I got a call from "Steve" at the end of the day and he said I was handling my file. He asked about my entry on line 21 for the 1040 and I explained 12 USC 411. I told him that since the income tax was a use tax and I did not use federal reserve notes there is not tax due. I also told him that the IRS had already accepted my return. As I indicated earlier they questioned a $100 discrepancy in quarterly withholding I had sent in and amounts I claimed on 1040. They said nothing about my line 21 reduction. My refund was therefore reduced by the $100. I volunteered to send a copy of this letter but he declined. I then stated that the Only requirement of the Oregon Form was to transfer the taxable income from line 37 of 1040 the adjusted gross income to their form and calculate taxes from there. I asked him what jurisdiction he had over questioning what was done on a 1040. He said that state law gave them the authority to question my income at any stage of the game.

He called today to tell me that he had read 12 usc 411 and did not see how that reduced my income. There was further back and forth along the same lines as yesterday when he stated that he would be calculating Oregon taxes based on his criteria and he would be sending me a letter. He also told me that I had to find something IRC to justify this entry on 21.

He assured me that I had the right to appeal, like I want to enter that den of vipers to get my money back.

Once I receive my letter I will post.

BTW just joined Lawful Money Trust and I just learned of McCulloch v Maryland. I will send this decision to him and point out out the logic of doug555 that LM is outside of the IRC and therefore I cannot prove a negative.

Looking forward to the section on Basic Trusts

[allodial]

You might show Oregon that principal isn't taxed.

[doug555]

So far there is no letter. I was contacted by phone. It all began last week after having waited these many months since filing that I had not received my refund. Checking the web site they informed me that the form was being processed manually. I called and the attendant said they would make an inquiry. If I had not received any further requests for information in a weeks time, to call back. I waited a week, called back and the new attendant said there were no responses to their inquiry in the system and that she would have a supervisor contact the people handling the the manual audit. That very day, yesterday, I got a call from "Steve" at the end of the day and he said I was handling my file. He asked about my entry on line 21 for the 1040 and I explained 12 USC 411. I told him that since the income tax was a use tax and I did not use federal reserve notes there is not tax due. I also told him that the IRS had already accepted my return. As I indicated earlier they questioned a $100 discrepancy in quarterly withholding I had sent in and amounts I claimed on 1040. They said nothing about my line 21 reduction. My refund was therefore reduced by the $100. I volunteered to send a copy of this letter but he declined. I then stated that the Only requirement of the Oregon Form was to transfer the taxable income from line 37 of 1040 the adjusted gross income to their form and calculate taxes from there. I asked him what jurisdiction he had over questioning what was done on a 1040. He said that state law gave them the authority to question my income at any stage of the game.

He called today to tell me that he had read 12 usc 411 and did not see how that reduced my income. There was further back and forth along the same lines as yesterday when he stated that he would be calculating Oregon taxes based on his criteria and he would be sending me a letter. He also told me that I had to find something IRC to justify this entry on 21.

He assured me that I had the right to appeal, like I want to enter that den of vipers to get my money back.

Once I receive my letter I will post.

BTW just joined Lawful Money Trust and I just learned of McCulloch v Maryland. I will send this decision to him and point out out the logic of doug555 that LM is outside of the IRC and therefore I cannot prove a negative.

Looking forward to the section on Basic Trusts

OK...

Look again at David's statement in "Public Money vs Private Credit":

On page 2 of 4:
A Taxpayer is allowed to claim a $1000 personal deduction when filing his return. The average taxpayer in the course of a year uses United States coins in vending machines, parking meters, small change, etc, and this public money must be deducted when computing the charge for using private credit.

IMO, this may establish the principle behind reducing 1040 tax by the amount of public money used.

David, can you specify where in the IRC you found this $1000 personal deduction?

[David Neil]

"From its earliest days, the Supreme Court has indicated that direct taxes include capitations and real property taxes at a minimum.24
The Court has also suggested that other types of taxes might be considered direct,25 although the Court did not find any such examples 26 until the
Pollock case in 1895."

Footnote 26: "26 See Hylton, 3 U.S. at 175 (upholding unapportioned tax on carriages); Pacific Insurance Co. v. Soule, 74 U.S. 433
(1869) (upholding tax on the business of insurance); Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. 533 (1869) (upholding tax on bank
notes); Scholey v. Rew, 90 U.S. 331 (1875) (upholding inheritance tax); Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881)
(upholding income tax)."

From: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40725.pdf

Tell them your time given to your employer was paid in money issued directly from the U.S. Treasury and not in bank credit issued by a bank! Veazie Bank v. Fenno!

When your time is paid in money issued under article 1 section 8 clause 2 (USN's) or 5 (coin) it is subject to the direct tax clauses.

When your time is discharged with bank credit issued by any bank operating under the federal reserve act it is subject to the excise tax or duty on contracts, on income upheld in Springer and explained in Veazie Bank.

Thank you Brian. I will also include these cites when directing my rebuttal the "Steve". My concern is that his attitude was stuck on "Find it in the IRC before I will consider it". This brings up the observation by doug555 that LM is without the IRC and I will never be able to find relevant information within. Citing law may well be met with refusal. I would then have to take it up with the tax court. We will see. Many times I have read in these threads that the tax courts do not want to hear challenges based on lawful money for fear of exposure to their scam.