Holder & Mail4tl -- A couple dozen of my clients have used Hendrickson s approach over the past few months. Many of them have received their refunds, andMar 29, 2006 1 of 18View SourceHolder & Mail4tl --A couple dozen of my clients have used Hendrickson's approach over the past few months. Many of them have received their refunds, and others are still waiting for the funds. I see no evidence that you will be under closer scrutiny by the IRS because you did or did not use Hendrickson's approach.On the other hand, there is some truth to the claim that the fed govt looks at you as a fed employee. In reality, however, it is more involved than that. The primary file the IRS keeps on each and every individual who has ever filed a tax return is called the Individual Master File. All other IRS files take from that one or update to it. And that file has almost every individual American listed as a business and as using a false SSN in reporting income information.THIS is what gives the IRS authority and jurisdiction over you.NOT the fact that you have a SSN or the fact that you have withholding from your paycheck, or the fact that you have discovered another twist to frustrate the IRS in its collection efforts or any other issue. You are listed as a business involved in a revenue-taxable activity required to file certain business forms with your return and you are using the SSN belonging to someone else. I have reviewed hundreds of IMFs and at least 95% of IMFs show those fraudulent details.The reason the IRS ignores letters and claims from individuals is because it is allowed to presume its records are accurate, and the agent involved in collections efforts is allowed to presume that the IRS computers would not spit out a letter in your name if you were not supposed to receive it.The problem is not with your claims. The problem is not with Hendrickson's approach. The problem is the false and fraudulent entries in your permanent IRS records. And until they get their records corrected, most people would benefit from using Hendrickson's approach.Yours in financial freedom,Dave Miner
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of holder
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 12:15 AM
Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Needed IRS HelpMichae Lee, I disagree if you are referring to losthorizons.com. Please cite the place where the SSA says you are a federal personel? And how are hundreds of us who have used Pete's information, getting clossure on the correcting items submitted, including myself on 2003 closure in my favor? Have you looked at the CtC site? My win is listed there.Bob Gross
Scott, Here s why I think your personal beliefs are incorrect: 1) You say Returns are processed through IRS and computers and not individually examined,Mar 29, 2006 1 of 18View SourceScott,
Here's why I think your "personal beliefs" are incorrect:
1) You say "Returns are processed through IRS and computers and not
individually examined," but to my knowledge, most (if not all) the refunds
documented at Lost Horizons did not happen automatically. Hendrickson even
warns readers in his book that there will almost always be some back and
forth between citizens and IRS personnel before they relent and cut a check.
2) You say "How many people with an SS# by law are not required to pay into
SS? The answer is none," but having an SS number doesn't obligate anybody to
pay a tax. Exactly what law would you cite as obligating me to pay a Social
Security Income Tax or a (for that matter) Medicare Income Tax -- just
because I have an SS number?
Frankly, it doesn't sound as if you've read the book or studied the law.
Your "personal beliefs" appear to be based more on a subjective hunch than
logic and facts.
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.3/296 - Release Date: 3/29/06
I think we ve looked at this before, a question arises as whether SS is a retirement benefit or a huge Ponsi Scheme....it certainly looks like a retirementMar 30, 2006 1 of 18View SourceI think we've looked at this before, a question arises as whether SS is a "retirement benefit"
or a huge Ponsi Scheme....it certainly looks like a retirement "fund", but think 'deception'
like everything else the gov't proposes...
A quick search quickly reveals SS is NOT retirement in the common sense of the word.
""These deductions are a TAX. No money is segregated into an individual account that is
invested for the individual. In the real world, this concept is known as a Ponzi Scheme,
which is a Fraud and is a criminal act. Those are the facts which are indisputable."
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Randy <rr@...> wrote:
> Hello Bob,
> Tuesday, March 28, 2006, 11:14:41 PM, you wrote:
> h> Please cite the place where [it] says you are a federal personel?
Again, the priveledge MUST be the production of INCOME. If you had no income, no SS tax is taken out. It does not say anywhere in Title 26 that the holdingMar 30, 2006 1 of 18View SourceAgain, the "priveledge" MUST be the production of
INCOME. If you had no income, no SS tax is taken out.
It does not say anywhere in Title 26 that the holding
of a SSN creates a liability. It DOES list a number of
legitmiately taxable activities however. It is ONLY
the production of income from those sources that
creates a liability. If having a SSN creates a
liability then why doesn't the government tax your
kids (if they have a number). Under your theory, the
mere holding of said number creates liability.
However, the law nowhere says this. Any theory which
cannot be supported by the actual text of the law is,
at a minimum, dubious.
> I think what Scott is saying is that 1) The error in__________________________________________________
> Pete's analysis is that he relies on the fact that
> income tax, imposed on the receipts of the
> governmentally-privileged, is legal, but you and I
> not engaged in that type of activity; 2) In reality,
> the income tax is levied upon the PRIVILEGE of
> participating in social security, because we
> to be federal personnel, (by not negating the
> at age 18), and it is the taxation of this PRIVILEGE
> which makes it an excise tax, which is wholly
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
84 CJS 59a, 1976 Ed. § 59. Persons Liable a. In general b. Persons under disabilities c. Residence and citizenship Generally speaking, every person whoMar 31, 2006 1 of 18View Source84 CJS 59a, 1976 Ed.
§ 59. Persons Liable
a. In general
b. Persons under disabilities
c. Residence and citizenship
Generally speaking, every person who subjects himself or his
property to the jurisdiction of the state comes within its taxing
power,70 and every property owner holds his title subject to the
sovereigns right of taxation.71 Liability to taxation is, however,
based on the individuals reciprocal enjoyment of the benefits of
government, as discussed supra § 4, and persons who are clearly
beyond reach of governmental benefits are likewise beyond the scope
of the taxing power.72 Tax liability will not be implied against
persons who do not fall within the description of those subjected to
tax by statutory provisions imposing it.73 Although the state may
tax its citizens personally, provided it violates no constitutional
restriction,74 an individual, unlike a corporation, is not subject
to tax for the mere privilege of existing75 and owning property,76
which are natural rights.77
70. U.S. Graves V. Schmidlapp, N.Y., 62 S.Ct. 870, 315 U.S. 657,
86 LEd. 1097. 141 A.L.R. 948.
Tex. Corpus Juris cited in Elder v. Hudspeth County Conservation &
R. Dist. No. 1, Civ.App., 64 S.W.2d 2d. 981, 9822.
61 C.J. p 170 note 33.
Corporations see Infra § 126.
An individual never enjoys tax immunity as of right but only as an
incidental windfall when, and only as long as, imposition of a state
tax in some way impairs, or interferes with, exercise of a federal
Petition of S. R.A., Inc., 13 N.W. 2d 442. 219 Minn. 493, affirmed
66 S.Ct. 749. 327 U.S. 558, 90 LEd. 851. followed in 18 N.W.2d 455,
219 Minn. 517.
A share In the benefit of a scheme of mutual protection is
sufficient compensation for the correlative burden of taxes.
Beeland Wholesale Co. v. Kaufman, 174 So. 516, 234 Ala. 249.
(1) A "firm" has been held a person within the meaning of a
statute relative to tax liability of a person moving into the
state. Bivins & Carroll v. Bird, 121 P. 1080, 31 Okl. 286.
(2) On the other hand, it has been held that a statute imposing tax
liability on a "person" should not be construed to embrace
municipalities or educational or charitable institutions, Unless the
entire provisions of the statute being construed Indicate
otherwise. City of Covington v. State Tax Commission, 77 S.W.2d
386. 257 Ky. 84.
71. Ohio. Van Gunten v. Worthley, 159 N.E. 326, 25 Ohio App. 496.
72. Wis. Fitch v. Wisconsin Tax Commission. 230 NW. 37, 201 Wis.
61 C.J. p 170 note 36.
73. Iowa. In re Kite's Estate. 187 N.W. 585, 194 Iowa 129. 24
61 C.J. p 170 note 37.
Liability not fixed by procedural statute
Statute relating to the listing and assessing of property for tax
pur- poses is a procedural statute guiding the county assessor In
the perform- ance of his duties in making up the assessment rolls,
and does not gov- ern or determine who is liable for payment of the
tax. Noble v. Jones, 45 F.Supp. 504. appeal dismissed Jones v.
Noble, D.C.Okl.. 130 F.2d 754.
74. Ala. Beeland Wholesale Co. v. Kaufman, 174 So. 516, 234 Ala.
75. Or. Redfleld v. Fisher, 292 P. 813, 135 Or. 180, reheard 295
P. 461, 135 Or. 180. Tax on corporate franchise see lnfra § 124.
76. Or. Redfleld v. Fisher. supra.
77. Or. Redfleld v. Fisher, supra.
I should ask you the question. Do you know of any court case where
someone with a Social Security number wasn't subject to the SS tax?
After all, those people are federal employees by statute:
TITLE 5 - GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES
PART I - THE AGENCIES GENERALLY
CHAPTER 5 - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
SUBCHAPTER II - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
Sec. 552a. Records maintained on individuals
(a) Definitions. - For purposes of this section
(13) the term ''Federal personnel'' means officers and
employees of the Government of the United States, members of the
uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components),
individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement
benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the
United States (including survivor benefits).
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle C - Employment Taxes
CHAPTER 21 - FEDERAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS ACT
Subchapter A - Tax on Employees
Sec. 3101. Rate of tax
(a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance
In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income
of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the
wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) received by him with respect
to employment (as defined in section 3121(b)) -
By the way, I have read a majority of Hendricksons book and agree
with most of it. There are a great deal of authors with accurate
information on the problem out there. However, when it comes to the
remedies, they are simply guessing and have no basis for comparison.
Furthermore, let's say that someone did discover a (works for all)
remedy, how many people do you think the U.S. would allow to win
before the judges were told to disregard even their pleadings as
frivolous? 100, 1,000, 10,000?
The U.S. has too much at stake to allow it. Have you noticed that
many procedures and statutes work against parties in a federal court
where the U.S. has no interest in the action? Then, you try to use
the very same winning procedures and statutes where the U.S. has a
vested interest in the case and all of a sudden your motions and
pleadings are disregarded?
Much as Richard Cornforth once said, "you have to pick and choose
your battles". Personally, I'd much rather go in front of an elected
judge than an appointed one any day of the week.
--- In email@example.com, "Tim Wallace" <liberty@...>
> Here's why I think your "personal beliefs" are incorrect:
> 1) You say "Returns are processed through IRS and computers and not
> individually examined," but to my knowledge, most (if not all) the
> documented at Lost Horizons did not happen automatically.Hendrickson even
> warns readers in his book that there will almost always be someback and
> forth between citizens and IRS personnel before they relent andcut a check.
Hello holder, Wednesday, March 29, 2006, 7:35:22 PM, you wrote: h Being aware of 5 USC 1.5.II.552a(a)13, the question remains, is SS a gummit h retirementMar 31, 2006 1 of 18View SourceHello holder,
Wednesday, March 29, 2006, 7:35:22 PM, you wrote:
h> Being aware of 5 USC 1.5.II.552a(a)13, the question remains, is SS a gummit
h> retirement program as you guys interpret? The more important question is not
h> how I or you deem it, but how "they" deem it. My understanding is that it is
h> a supplemental disability insurance program as defined, in the act itself.
h> I don't remember ever seeing SSA defined as a "retirement program".
From the Preamble of The Social Security Act of 1935:
An act to provide ... a system of Federal old-age benefits, .... and
for other purposes.
I don't think we are in Kansas anymore Toto!
Why is it, that certain corrupt politicians are smart enough to know how to take money away from you to create Trickle Down social welfare programs likeMar 31, 2006 1 of 18View Source
Why is it, that certain corrupt politicians are "smart"
enough to know how to take money away from you
to create "Trickle Down" social welfare programs
like Social Security, but are just TOO STUPID to
know how to make responsible Americans wealthy
and independent of government handouts?
Oooooops, I think I answered my own question, for if
you didn't have to depend on these politicians for handouts,
they'd have no power over us.
Well, just keep voting for those politicians who have
power over you.
At 01:52 PM 3/30/06 +0000, you wrote:
I think we've looked at this before, a question arises as whether SS is a "retirement benefit"
Hello hvncb, Thursday, March 30, 2006, 7:52:09 AM, you wrote: h I think we ve looked at this before, a question arises as whether SS is a retirement benefitMar 31, 2006 1 of 18View SourceHello hvncb,
Thursday, March 30, 2006, 7:52:09 AM, you wrote:
h> I think we've looked at this before, a question arises as whether SS is a "retirement benefit"
h> or a huge Ponsi Scheme....it certainly looks like a retirement "fund", but think 'deception'
h> like everything else the gov't proposes...
h> ... In the real world, this concept is known as a Ponzi Scheme,
h> which is a Fraud and is a criminal act. Those are the facts which are indisputable."
Although I agree it is a Ponzi Scheme, it is not a fraud nor a
criminal act. Why? Because you applied for a benefit (deferred) and
you don't have standing to dispute the constitutionality of an act
under which you derive a benefit. Cute huh!
I don't keep saying "you aren't in Kansas anymore Toto" to be a
smartalec. It is the truth. The real question is why?