Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Needed IRS Help

Expand Messages
  • Dave Miner
    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, and
    Message 1 of 18 , Mar 29, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      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, 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: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of holder
      Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 12:15 AM
      To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Needed IRS Help

      Michae 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
    • Tim Wallace
      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,
      Message 2 of 18 , Mar 29, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        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," 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.

        TW
        --
        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
      • hvncb
        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 retirement
        Message 3 of 18 , Mar 30, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          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 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."

          http://batr.org/twins/id2.html


          --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, 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?
          >
        • Michae Lee
          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 holding
          Message 4 of 18 , Mar 30, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            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 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
            > the
            > income tax, imposed on the receipts of the
            > governmentally-privileged, is legal, but you and I
            > are
            > 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
            > volunteer
            > to be federal personnel, (by not negating the
            > contract
            > at age 18), and it is the taxation of this PRIVILEGE
            > which makes it an excise tax, which is wholly
            > constitutional.


            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
            http://mail.yahoo.com
          • Scott
            84 CJS 59a, 1976 Ed. § 59. Persons Liable a. In general b. Persons under disabilities c. Residence and citizenship Generally speaking, every person who
            Message 5 of 18 , Mar 31, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              84 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
              function.

              – 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.

              Mutual protection

              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.

              "Person"

              (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.
              383.
              61 C.J. p 170 note 36.
              73. Iowa. – In re Kite's Estate. 187 N.W. 585, 194 Iowa 129. 24
              A.L.R. 850.
              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.
              249.

              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
              -STATUTE-
              (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 tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Tim Wallace" <liberty@...>
              wrote:
              >
              > 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," 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.
            • Randy
              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 retirement
              Message 6 of 18 , Mar 31, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                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> 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!

                --
                Best regards,
                Randy mailto:rr@...
              • Don Schwarz
                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
                Message 7 of 18 , Mar 31, 2006
                • 0 Attachment


                  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"
                • Randy
                  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 benefit
                  Message 8 of 18 , Mar 31, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 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?

                    --
                    Best regards,
                    Randy mailto:rr@...
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.