Fwd: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Digest Number 1231
- 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
administrative journey. While it is true that some are receiving refund checks, others are
receiving only empty form letters and we have not heard from those who, having received a refund
check, are now being hounded by the IRS administratively for the return of those funds. Nor have
we heard from those being sued by the US for the return of erroneous refunds.
Pete's method relies on IRS Form 4852 to allegedly rebut the Form W-2 that IRS uses to calculate a
tax liability. As you are aware, the W-2 shows amounts paid as "wages" and amounts "withheld" as
tax at the source. As you are also aware, most Forms W-2 are erroneous in that they are made by
entites that should not be making them. This arises as a result of the entities negligently
applying the provisions of Subtitle C to the pay of their workers.( See Title 26 USC Sections
We know from various Supreme Court Rulings(citations ommitted) that the income tax is a tax in the
nature of an excise. That being true, the taxes contemplated in subtitle C arise not from earning
an amount of money from a job, but, from one engaging in a revenue taxable activity. In this case,
the taxable activity is the privelege of working for the government, a fact documented by the Form
W-2 and the tax being measured by the amount of gross earnings as listed on the Form W-2.
The essence ,then, of the legal presumption behind a Form W-2 is the nature of the transaction in
that the form establishes the taxable nature of the activity and documents the amount of taxes
applied as measured by the gross proceeds as listed on the form.
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 government.
--- legalbear7 <bear@...> wrote:
> Since a lot of Tips & Tricks members have been using and promoting__________________________________________________
> www.losthorizons.com; and since they have been having success as is
> evident by the refund check copies on that site; I want you to put
> some authority with your assertion. Tell us how you know "You didn't
> rebut anything." Form 4852 is the form that Pete Hendrickson espouses
> using to rebut information returns. Bear
> > --- Darrell Berg <gimesumodat@...> wrote:
> > > Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 16:11:44 -0700 (PDT)
> > > From: Darrell Berg <gimesumodat@...>
> > > Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Digest Number 1231
> > > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > >
> > > You cannot rebut an information return with a form 4852 because
> the form is not set up to rebut
> > > the essence of the info return. You didn't rebut anything.
> > >
> > > --- Circuitman <circuitman@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > >The W-2 and 1099 must be rebutted. The way to rebut the W-2 is
> with a 4852.
> > > > >The way to rebut the 1099 is to fill out a new blank one
> stating the actual
> > > > >amount of wages ($0.00) you received, then at the top of the
> form mark it as
> > > > >"CORRECTED". This is your admissable credible evidence.
> > > >
> > > > Dan the CircuitMan
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around