... I too do not want to detract from Pet Hendrickson s noble efforts. I think he has come closer to a solution than many people prior. However, as noted, the
Message 1 of 1
, Jun 1, 2006
First, let me say that Pete
Hendrickson has done a superb job of illuminating the tax law and
providing citizens, such as myself, with the foundation necessary to
embark on a difficult
The Form 4852 is clearly an administrative tool used by IRS to document
erroneous information on
Forms W-2, among others, and does not contemplate controversy beyond the
factual nature of the
amounts listed. That being so, the only factual controversy that can be
settled by use of this
form is one regarding the AMOUNT of those items listed thereon and not
the NATURE of the
transaction being measured for tax liability. I hope you can see that
listing "zeros" for all
amounts on the form does not address the NATURE of the alleged activity
and therefore cannot
possibly be used to rebut the underlying legal presumption of the form;
the alleged taxable
activity of working for the
I too do not want to detract from Pet Hendrickson's noble efforts. I
think he has come closer to a solution than many people prior. However,
as noted, the remedy recommended by Pete fails to address several
Of my concern is that the Form 4852, or a "corrected" 1099,
only opens the door to create a dispute. Pete's remedy, which actually
has been around in one manner or another since the 90s, fails to address
the issue of evidence. Submitting a Form 4852 or a "corrected"
1099 only creates a "did too, did not" argument. Because the
thieves treat the original documents as evidence and prima facie correct
as having received gross income subject to taxation, the thieves
conveniently ignore any rebuttal effort.
Where I think Pete has fallen short, but I think he and others are
learning quickly, is how to respond in an administratively proper manner
when the request for refund is denied or later revoked. I don't think
Pete or his followers thought that far ahead. The proper administrative
response is a) to request an examination interview when the Form 4549
"Income Tax Examination Change" is mailed; and b) to request an
Appeals hearing when the Notice of Proposed Assessment is mailed. At both
meetings one can demand to see authenticated admissible evidence, which
does not exist, and at the latter hearing, can examine
The thieves likely will ignore these efforts and eventually issue a
Notice of (proposed) Deficiency, in which one then can petition the tax
court to issue a determination. Or, for those people who have suffered
withholding and are expecting a full refund, to sue in district court for
There are numerous evidentiary problems with the way the thieves handle
their administrative record. I have been identifying those problems in
previous posts as well as alluding to them in my queries for help. I hope
to soon coordinate my observations into a single document, but that is
taking time because I still am in research mode.
Theoretically, after creating the "did too, did not" dispute
the thieves then should conduct an administrative investigation. They
refuse to do that and choose instead to operate solely upon numerous
presumptions rather than fact.
Sadly too, many people who decide to join this fight have incorrectly
focused on questions of law rather than questions of fact. I belive this
is a primary reason why so many people lose in litigation. Questions of
fact revolve around issues of evidence. And this I think is where people
need to focus.
Pete and his followers are trying to introduce affirmative evidence to
validate their "did not" stance, but I think this is
self-destructive. One cannot prove a negative, therefore how does one
introduce evidence that they "did not"? They can't and they
lose. So they then revert back into the realm of arguing questions of law
rather than questions of fact.
The better approach is to challenge the utter lack of evidence possessed
by the thieves. That approach keeps the burden of proof in the lap of the
thieves. The key is never make an evidentiary claim because the person
making the claim bears the burden of proof. When the thieves accuse
somebody of not filing a return, or deny a refund, the burden of proof
rests with the thieves. Keep the burden of proof placed there. The only
way to do that is to use the Socratic method and never make an
affirmative claim because that approach quickly erodes into arguing law
rather than facts.
Just my opinion and YMMV.
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.
Changes have not been saved
Press OK to abandon changes or Cancel to continue editing
Your browser is not supported
Kindly note that Groups does not support 7.0 or earlier versions of Internet Explorer.
We recommend upgrading to the latest Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, or Firefox. If you are using IE 9 or later, make sure you turn off Compatibility View.