So you got an CP-515 Letter in 1995 after you stopped
filing in 1983? How did you respond. How have you been
able to keep your place of work from deducting the
tax?


-- patrickhenry <patrickhenryhart@...> wrote:

> Those and several others, not including 861. I see
> now, that you're a promoter, and not an actor. Some
> of us "acted" a long time ago. Obviously, it's
> easier to the go-along-to-get-along, and pay the
> extortion fee. But, some of us are actually free,
> and are not required to participate in the
> extortion. Do it correctly, and "they" will leave
> you alone, because "they" don't want us in any court
> which would expose their bluff & house of cards.
>
> Per 6001, when did you get your letter/notice from
> the Secretary, informing you that you were even
> potentially liable for whatever privileged activity
> or occupation you are involved in? Thus, to keep
> records thereof, etc.? I never got one of those.
> At one time, while I was in the military, I didn't
> have any choice to participate. Fortunately, that
> was only for one hitch during 'Nam.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Frank
> To: legality-of-income-tax@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 11:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [legality-of-income-tax] Re: Sources
>
>
> Who says I stopped filing ?????
> For now I find it 'easier' to pay their extortion
> fee.
>
> So, what was your argument to the IRS about
> sections 6001, 6011, and 6012(a) that has
> supposedly
> stopped them from persuing you any further ????
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: patrickhenry
> To: legality-of-income-tax@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 7:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [legality-of-income-tax] Re:
> Sources
>
>
>
> Sorry, but you are trying to find "wayyyy" too
> much else in the Code and the Regs! You obviously
> MISSED the sarcasm in my post. If you actually read
> and studied the sections I pointed out {i.e., the
> ones the IRS has to tell you about due to the
> Privacy Act}, most people living and working in one
> of the 50 states of the Union don't even have to go
> beyond 6001 or 6011.
>
> The use of any 861 info didn't even come out
> through research by a fellow SAPF member {before
> Larken} until about 15 years AFTER I confronted them
> and stopped participating.
>
> Hey, I like Larken {I'm still on his list}, and
> have sent Dr. Tom requested information etc. But,
> 861 is NOT where it's at. It is only a small
> portion of the rest of it, namely anything to do
> with 6001, 6011 and 6012(a) {incidentally, the only
> one that is really that confusing as to "whom" they
> are actually talking about if you don't understand
> that it's a "Withholding Agent"}.
>
> How long's it been since you stopped filing
> Frank?
>
> Though I don't even agree with everything Ronald
> Weston posts, you'd be much better off paying
> attention to him.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Frank
> To: legality-of-income-tax@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 7:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [legality-of-income-tax] Re:
> Sources
>
>
> The sections you mention only state they apply
> IF you are LIABLE.
>
> 861 determines IF you are liable.
>
> Maybe you didn't use 861 against the IRS, but
> whatever
> inference you used to tell them you weren't
> LIABLE ,
> could have been SUBSTANTIATED with 861,
> and they may have infered that 861
> substantiated your claim.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: patrickhenry
> To: legality-of-income-tax@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 5:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [legality-of-income-tax] Re:
> Sources
>
>
>
> I see, so back in the early 80s, I should
> have looked to 861, rather than others even
> referenced by the IRS such as 6001, 6011 and 6012(a)
> to determine if I were 1st liable, then "required"
> to file, and "then" subject to the details of 861?
> Hmmm! You mean I've not filed since for return of
> the 1st 4 months of Withholding for 1983, without
> using 861? Good golly, I wonder why I haven't even
> gotten an "inquiry" {CP-515 Letter, etc.} since
> April 1995?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Frank
> To: legality-of-income-tax@yahoogroups.com
>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 11:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [legality-of-income-tax] Re:
> Sources
>
>
> You wouldn't know if you were REQUIRED to
> file,
> until you followed the regulations at 861,
> that tell you "HOW to DETERMINE TAXABLE
> income
> from sources WITHIN U.S."
>
> So if those sections show that you do NOT
> OWE,
> then I believe there is no duty to file a
> return ,
> if you do not owe any tax.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: paradoxmagnus
> To:
> legality-of-income-tax@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 5:31 AM
> Subject: [legality-of-income-tax] Re:
> Sources
>
>
> Here's the PROBLEM I see.
>
> Unless you were a person REQUIRED to
> file a return "with respect to
> income taxes under subtitle A", WHY
> would you be using those
> portions of the Title 26 and the CFR
> that deal with "Income From
> Sources Within or Without the United
> States"?
>
> And even if those sections of the IRC
> show that you do NOT OWE, HOW
> does that relieve you of your DUTY to
> file a return?
>
> Patrick in California
>
>
>




________________________________________________________________________________\
____
TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/