Get Your Billions Back, America: 2014

[David Neil]

Allodial,
While I did not use that analogy, my response to Alex circled to that fact several times. How can Oregon come up with one set of numbers while IRS comes up with another. Oregon laws states that Oregon tax is based on adjusted gross income as determined on 1040 Line 4.In fact it is the very first item entered on Oregon Form 40. It is the taxable income that is the measure to determin the amount of Oregon tax. SO truly Oregon is not taxing the income but measuring the use of something based on income. We'll see how he responds.

There are some interesting discussions on the lawfulmoneytrust.com site. There are a few folks getting "Frivolous Position" letters from IRS and State agency.

The absurd thing is, in order to rectify the Oregon tax, the only thing to do is to repudiate my 1040 as submitted to IRS and has to my judgement been found to be accurate and refund processed. Or I can lie about the amount I put in Line 8 of OR Form 40 to make make the numbers come out as if Oregon was not based on Federal. Even though Alex states that even if there is no Federal Liability a State Liability can exist. I can't see this based on how the form is laid out.

[allodial]

You can basically do the equivalent of an order to show cause: as in make them show you how taxing you for bills you redeemed for lawful money and were effectively the underwriter could be regarded to give rise to any taxable gain to you? Kind've relates to "conditional acceptance". I would avoid arguing as to the amount or whether you owe or not. I'd ask questions as how why they are arguing or disputing the Federal amount or Federal filing. Specifically why are they creating a controversy over a matter settled in the U.S. Tax Court.

Re: State Liability
Sure, State liability could arise from property tax, motor vehicle fees, sales tax, use tax, taxes assessed by the State or even from insufficient State taxes withheld--he isn't saying anything unique .. "it can exist"--true. Did you have any of that State-level kind of tax liability with respect to that filing?

Presumption
Of course, if amount of taxable income on the Federal level is the same as the on the State level then the issue overall might be moot. If there is a discrepancy per Oregon Dept. Revenue's "magic abacus" then I'd say there seems to be problem.

Re: Falsification
Also I would not falsify any such filing, that's asking for trouble. Perjury in State tax court? Not a good idea maybe?


Can we has some munnie pwease even doe we issint owed it?

[Franco]

[Chex]

Very well stated Franco: "When a defendant complains of matters that can be clarified and developed during discovery, rather than matters which impede his ability to form a responsive pleading, an order directing the plaintiff to file a more definite statement is not warranted." Sisk v. Texas parks and wildlife dept. 644 Fed.2d, 1056, 1059 (5th Cir. 1981).

[allodial]

Imagine, tax court arguing with both U.S. Congress and the U.S. District Court --even arguing with an Article II judge.

[David Neil]

Very well stated Franco: "When a defendant complains of matters that can be clarified and developed during discovery, rather than matters which impede his ability to form a responsive pleading, an order directing the plaintiff to file a more definite statement is not warranted." Sisk v. Texas parks and wildlife dept. 644 Fed.2d, 1056, 1059 (5th Cir. 1981).

The dilemma here is that using the methods the have, rejection under ORS316.992, I will not be the the defendant, but the plaintiff in an appeal. The burden of proof will be on me that lawful money redemption is not frivolous and by inference lawful money is not taxable by the State.

[Franco]

Thanks Chex, Franco

[Michael Joseph]

The dilemma here is that using the methods the have, rejection under ORS316.992, I will not be the the defendant, but the plaintiff in an appeal. The burden of proof will be on me that lawful money redemption is not frivolous and by inference lawful money is not taxable by the State.

Counterclaim.

[marcel]

Have any of you ever sued the IRS for not recognizing your demand for lawful money, adding an assessment, and then refusing to remove it even after shown evidence of your claim of lawful money redemption?

[Chex]

A: Your question isn't income-related but And then factor in that no other theory provides such a complete answer to everything tax-related. It accounts for all the missing pieces:

• national currency issuance was taxed, why would they stop?
• why the tax code never defines "income"
• why the code is so convoluted & uses so many custom-defined terms
• why those who endorse Fed Reserve currency are convicted
• why the law makes a distinction between FRNs & Lawful Money
• why the law still allows redemption in LM
• why the tax return is voluntary
• why you have a right to be heard
• why no lawful money cases adjudicated
• why they can't bring proof-of-claim
• why the disinfo agents badmouth it (War by Propaganda)

And that's just barely scratching the surface. All the data points fit together perfectly. It's the unified field theory of taxation. .

Mr. Cash can really get you mind going. Why Documents under seal (deeds) do not require consideration for there to be a binding contract

Doubt as to liability exists where there is a genuine dispute as to the existence or amount of the correct tax debt under the law. If you have a legitimate doubt that you owe part or all of the tax debt, you will need to complete a Form 656-L, Offer in Compromise (Doubt as to Liability).

Doubt as to liability cannot be disputed or considered if the tax debt has been established by a final court decision or judgment concerning the existence or amount of the assessed tax debt or if the assessed tax debt is based on current law. Submitting an offer application does not guarantee that the IRS will accept your offer. It begins a process of evaluation and verification by the IRS.

Generally, you will send in a doubt as to liability offer when you were unable to dispute the amount of tax the IRS claims you owe during the time allowed by the Internal Revenue Code or IRS guidelines. Possible reasons for submitting a doubt as to liability offer in compromise include the following: the examiner made a mistake interpreting the tax law, the examiner failed to consider the evidence presented; new evidence is available to support a change to the assessment. Below are some examples of when it may be appropriate to make an offer based on doubt as to liability.

You must provide a written statement explaining why the tax debt or portion of the tax debt is incorrect. In addition, you must provide supporting documentation or evidence that will help the IRS identify the reason(s) you doubt the accuracy of the tax debt.

Note: Failing to provide a written statement will cause your offer to be returned with no further consideration.

Form 656-L

[lorne]

No Marcel, never sued the IRS but have seen their computers just continue the billing cycle like you haven't told them anything about lawful money. I don't know where you are but it's a long slow process from first CP notice to FNOITL which would end in the garnishment/seizure. Could take years.

I suspect the IRS scam has been scientifically developed to work on most human animals and when they come across that one (in a million?) who actually knows what's going on, well... they just continue the billing cycle, right, what's the downside?

If you stand firm in the law and respond, dispute or R4C every IRS letter/notice they will eventually relent. Michael Joseph has written some effective letters although I wouldn't copy verbatim. You should come to know what you're talking about.

[marcel]

thanks but suggesting I should offer them $1 Offer in Compromise on Form 656-L when I have no tax liability? It could b their IRS scam isn't working because I'm not a "human animal" but a shell, with shoes.
What's the downside? downside for them is, I could sue. get facts on the record that my lawful money income is not taxable income. Expose their fraud in court.

[lorne]

Sue in tax court? Tax court is not a court of record.

Yes, it could be you don't respond to guilt-, fear- or manipulation-based discipline.

[Chex]

In their world - Yes. The Tax Court is a court of record.

[marcel]

so if not Tax Court where would I sue the IRS? Hoping for agent one-on-one I called them up. Got a young man, very nosey, asked me where I worked and, get this, where I banked! Told him that was private and he patched me through to a woman who looked up details in their AUR system. Had a civil chat, told her a mistake had been made but she would not budge an inch on INCOME. I know that not all income is taxable income but she talked like in her mind all receipts were income to be reported. Since I was disputing the payment of INCOME she told me I could write to IRS and ask them to inquire with the payer of alleged income (now out of business). So I''ll try that.