Exactly what does the IRS agent think?

[David Merrill]

I have been updating this opening post so all the major memorandums, notices and updates might be here.




The best way to discern how an IRS agent is going to interpret your Zero-Income Return based on Title 12 U.S.C. §411 is to study his Required Reading. His boss tells him what he has to read, to train him about the guidelines about when to issue a warning or $5K penalty for a frivolous filing.

I invite even the most skeptical readers to find a directive about redeeming lawful money as framed in the Fed Act and Title 12.

https://books.google.com/books?id=AM...otices&f=false - CFR Frivolous notices


https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-news/ir-05-064.pdf

Notice 2007-61

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-07-30.pdf
http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/3...tionsmemor.pdf

Notice 2007-30

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-08-14.pdf
http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/349...tionsmemor.pdf

Notice 2008-14

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb10-17.pdf

Notice 2010-33 is inside this pdf:

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb10-17.pdf

Notice 2011-004


To save time I suggest keywords to search:


lawful
redeem
redemption
Title 12
411

[Hbert997]

Hi David,

Okay, I'm a 'noob' here and maybe this topic has been vetted and fully researched...however, I've searched the above documents in your post and found a reference in the last one to a US v. Rickman case where it states:

"United States v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182, 184 (10th Cir. 1980) - The court affirmed the conviction for willfully failing to file a return and rejected the taxpayer's argument "the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, Sub Section 8, United States Constitution."..."

Please comment and help me to understand the context. Thnx.

Hbert

[motla68]

The best way to discern how an IRS agent is going to interpret your Zero-Income Return based on Title 12 U.S.C. §411 is to study his Required Reading. His boss tells him what he has to read, to train him about the guidelines about when to issue a warning or $5K penalty for a frivolous filing.

I invite even the most skeptical readers to find a directive about redeeming lawful money as framed in the Fed Act and Title 12.

http://www.irs.gov/taxexemptbond/20k...134362,00.html - notices

http://www.irs.treas.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-10-33.pdf
http://img862.imageshack.us/img862/3...tionsmemor.pdf
Notice 2010-33

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...168637,00.html

Notice 2007-61

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-07-30.pdf
http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/3...tionsmemor.pdf

Notice 2007-30

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-08-14.pdf
http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/349...tionsmemor.pdf

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-ccdm/cc-2011-004.pdf
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf


To save time I suggest keywords to search:

lawful
redeem
redemption
Title 12
411

David, there is a lot of links here to different resources, can you please put a side note to these links to point out the specific areas that are related to your post?
Not that I am a statutory employee required to file for the name though.

Thank you.

[David Merrill]

Hi David,

Okay, I'm a 'noob' here and maybe this topic has been vetted and fully researched...however, I've searched the above documents in your post and found a reference in the last one to a US v. Rickman case where it states:

"United States v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182, 184 (10th Cir. 1980) - The court affirmed the conviction for willfully failing to file a return and rejected the taxpayer's argument "the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, Sub Section 8, United States Constitution."..."

Please comment and help me to understand the context. Thnx.

Hbert

Gary RICKMAN was obviously not demanding redemption of lawful money. Two case decisions should be considered when understanding the demand.

In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money.

and

United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

Good Catch!!

I appreciate that. The first thing to know is that Congress has the power to define money. They define it for the States to be metal coin too. Ergo - In the exercise of that power... The Court has the authority to interpret and quite clearly, federal reserve notes are redeemable in lawful money, but are not necessarily lawful money.

There is a lot to be said on that but it is off topic here. What we are looking at is the instructions that an IRS agent gets and I had not noticed the January 1, rendition until yesterday while searching around. So thanks for looking for me - saved me a little reading.

You can get a look for yourselves though. I have attached Rickman in full.

Putting that into the recent rendition of Frivolous Notices tells me that the IRS has been watching SJC and minding Shoonra and my debates over the interpretation of Rickman and Ware. Primarily though Gary RICKMAN did not make demands with his paychecks so he was not applying remedy as prescribed in the Fed Act.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Motla68;

The common thread is that the IRS agents get training through notices. Those are the Notices about the Frivolous Filing Penalty - guidelines on when the IRS agent is to attach the fine. I will arrange them chronologically and note some details.

[Treefarmer]

Thank you for attaching US vs Rickman David.
That was an interesting read.

I think you are right about the IRS notices.
The notices seem to be the policy which the IRS agents follow.
The IRS gives public notice of its policies in those documents, and then its agents enforce those policies.
No tax payer can reasonably say that he didn't know what the rules were, since the policy rules are spelled out in the notices.

Bright blessings

[Michael Joseph]

within the United States being the key Phrase.....

[David Merrill]

Thank you for attaching US vs Rickman David.
That was an interesting read.

I think you are right about the IRS notices.

The notices seem to be the policy which the IRS agents follow.

The IRS gives public notice of its policies in those documents, and then its agents enforce those policies.

No tax payer can reasonably say that he didn't know what the rules were, since the policy rules are spelled out in the notices.

Bright blessings

You are quite welcome. If I may say so myself; this thread and that opening post is quite the Find!

within the United States being the key Phrase.....

Your keenness about boundaries, abutment, easement and diversity is greatly appreciated around here MJ!


Succinctly put though Gary RICKMAN did nothing by way of making his demand for lawful money at the proper juncture, by non-or-restricting his endorsement of private credit on the backside of his paychecks.

[David Merrill]

This is where I want to mention a fellow (before he became a suitor) in NY was at a friend's party where his friend's sister is an IRS attorney. He overheard her say, There is a group of people in Colorado who do not pay income tax, they are doing it correctly. He immediately thought about me, having read about me on the Internet.

He tried to keep her divulging information but she clammed up. He tells me that the next time he saw her he was hoping she would open up about it again, but no sugar.

[Hbert997]

I will look over the Rickman case carefully this weekend...thank you for posting it. And, also for explaining that he didn't DEMAND his paycheck to be lawful money pursuant to Title 12 USC Sub. Section 411.

Now for the bigger question...(at least for me)! Do you see it possible to "retroactively" apply this remedy to years past in which there is controversy? For instance, for several years past I didn't file...then, upon poor "legal" advice, filed for those years and then have been garnished/levied...even to the tune of substantial $$$'s. According to their files, I still owe for back years and I have had to file for banko to buy time. Now with my head back out, finding this remedy has been a godsend to my current situation. However, can I nullify/void/alter going back in history using this remedy?

Hbert

[David Merrill]

I will look over the Rickman case carefully this weekend...thank you for posting it. And, also for explaining that he didn't DEMAND his paycheck to be lawful money pursuant to Title 12 USC Sub. Section 411.

Now for the bigger question...(at least for me)! Do you see it possible to "retroactively" apply this remedy to years past in which there is controversy? For instance, for several years past I didn't file...then, upon poor "legal" advice, filed for those years and then have been garnished/levied...even to the tune of substantial $$$'s. According to their files, I still owe for back years and I have had to file for banko to buy time. Now with my head back out, finding this remedy has been a godsend to my current situation. However, can I nullify/void/alter going back in history using this remedy?

Hbert

The accusation would be a general fraud by omission. But then, the remedy was written in 1913.

Suitors are a brain trust. This fellow got both years Refunded.

What has happened here today - that has come to light though - is that the IRS has brought up Rickman in the light to misdirect IRS agents to attach the $5K penalty for filing for a Refund by remedy.