Form 4852 and "Corrected" 1099s
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 government.
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 issues.
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 witnesses.
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 that refund.
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.