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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] letter from CA

Expand Messages
  • BOB GREGORY
    *If no information returns (such as W2, 1099, 1098, etc.) were made showing that you had purported income or wages then you have no need to correct them.
    Message 1 of 12 , Jun 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      If no information returns (such as W2, 1099, 1098, etc.) were made showing that you had purported "income" or "wages"  then you have no need to correct them.  If there are any such returns, the you need to correct them in the manner shown by Pete Hendrickson in Cracking the Code and then file a federal 1040.

      It sounds as though the letter you received is a standard "fishing" letter.  The "average income for this occupation" is a specious concept.  There are incomes both above and BELOW the average.  Second, holding a license is not proof that you were active in the related business or profession any more than having a fishing license proves that you went fishing while you had it.

      Am I correct in assuming that a California personal income tax return is based on data from the filer's federal tax return?  If so, and you need to file the federal Form 1040, and you sign it under penalty of perjury, then what your are saying when you sign a California return under penalty of perjury is that you have accurately provided to California the information on your federal tax return. 

      As for the corporation, I don't know anything about California law, but I assume that if the corporation existed for any part of the year a tax return form would need to be submitted.  The federal form is Form 1120 (or 1120S for a subchapter s corporation).  The K-1 is a subordinate form, actually 1065 K-1, of Form 1065, which as a partnership tax return.

      I don't hold myself out as an expert, just someone who studies a lot, and this isn't legal advice, just an expression of my understanding of how things work.




      On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Tracy Darling <tdarling1@...> wrote:


      Hello, All:
      I am deeply grateful to all of you for your comments. I apologize for the delay in reply, but I have been a bit overwhelmed by the responses and support I have had in this matter! I purchased the "Cracking the Code" book and am reading it now.
       
      In response to a request for the body of the letter sent to me by the "State of California Filing Enforcement Section, Franchise Tax Board,"here it is:
       
      "We believe you need to file a 2007 CA income tax return. We received information from the Board of Medical Quality Assurance that you held an active professional/business license, sales permit, or that employees worked for you in 2007. The average income for this occupation indicates that you received sufficient income to have a filing requirement. We also received information that you earned income from, but not limited to: Capital Bank and Trust (which is not true, I received income from no other source than my patients). We checked our records and failed to locate your 2007 California personal income tax return. We want to work with you to resolve this matter as soon as possible."
       
      It goes on to tell me how to respond to the notice, and that I must send in my return and reply by June 17.
       
      My first inclination, from what I have learned thus far, is to simply reply with "I received your letter, and I am not required to file a return as I did not have taxable income according to my understanding of the term. I also must inform you that I received no income from Capital Bank and trust, and if you have evidence otherwise, please forward that evidence to me immediately, so that I may correct any error I may have made."
       
      Is this appropriate, or do you recommend I file a "proper" 1040 as described in "cracking the code"....
       
      It does get a bit more complicated, as I was incorporated for 15 days of 2007, but did not make any income, and the corporation was literally broke before and during this time, so the corp does not owe any tax, I'm sure...but do I need to file a K-1 anyway?
       

    • paradoxmagnus
      I would be very WARY of Cracking the Code . It appears that the IRS & DOJ are going after many of those who have used it s METHODS & obtained REFUNDS.
      Message 2 of 12 , Jun 2, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        I would be very WARY of "Cracking the Code".

        It appears that the IRS & DOJ are going after many of those who have used it's METHODS & obtained REFUNDS.

        http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/Dowling_Complaint.pdf

        http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/Golson_Complaint.pdf

        http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/Gerstenkorn_Complaint.pdf

        http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/Spitzer_Complaint.pdf

        http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/Artman_Complaint.pdf

        Patrick in California

        "It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin' on ya is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so." -- Uncle Remus



        --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Tracy Darling <tdarling1@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hello, All:
        > I am deeply grateful to all of you for your comments. I apologize for the
        > delay in reply, but I have been a bit overwhelmed by the responses and
        > support I have had in this matter! I purchased the "Cracking the Code" book
        > and am reading it now.
      • Robert Parker
        These are several years old. I have not read the book or know his methods but many have received refunds. Also, reviewing the one complaint, the government
        Message 3 of 12 , Jun 2, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          These are several years old.  I have not read the book or know his methods but many have received refunds.  Also, reviewing the one complaint, the government continues to assert that the legal term "includes" can mean nearly anything and that it is not a limiting statement.  This of course is ridiculous as the law can not be ambiguous.  Using this logic I guess one can include anything they would like.  It seems most of the DOJ's argument hinges on the legal definition of "includes" and they include several cases supporting their claim, as utterly ridiculous as it is.

          This country is in trouble and it is largely because of lawyers that we are in this predicament.  Revolution can not come soon enough.



          On Jun 2, 2009, at 4:02 AM, paradoxmagnus wrote:



          I would be very WARY of "Cracking the Code".

          It appears that the IRS & DOJ are going after many of those who have used it's METHODS & obtained REFUNDS.

          http://www.usdoj. gov/tax/Dowling_ Complaint. pdf

          http://www.usdoj. gov/tax/Golson_ Complaint. pdf

          http://www.usdoj. gov/tax/Gerstenk orn_Complaint. pdf

          http://www.usdoj. gov/tax/Spitzer_ Complaint. pdf

          http://www.usdoj. gov/tax/Artman_ Complaint. pdf

          Patrick in California

          "It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin' on ya is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so." -- Uncle Remus

          --- In tips_and_tricks@ yahoogroups. com, Tracy Darling <tdarling1@. ..> wrote:
          >
          > Hello, All:
          > I am deeply grateful to all of you for your comments. I apologize for the
          > delay in reply, but I have been a bit overwhelmed by the responses and
          > support I have had in this matter! I purchased the "Cracking the Code" book
          > and am reading it now.


        • Roger Hattman
          Just a suggestion:  I might be very careful how you word you letter.  I have never dealt with the California Franchise Tax Board, so I make the assumption
          Message 4 of 12 , Jun 2, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Just a suggestion:  I might be very careful how you word you letter.  I have never dealt with the California Franchise Tax Board, so I make the assumption that they are like the feds.  That is, they probably flag you as "resister" or whatever.  Most likely you are not flagged yet.  So watch you wording carefully.  Some wording I would question " I did not have taxable income according to my understanding of the term"    Already you give them the suggestion that you are researching the phrase taxable income and have formed an opinion of it.  Better might be "I have not recieved any income" or " "I have not recieved any taxable income" or whatever.  The less info you give the better.  Remember, that you are building a record.  It is good to ask questions so that when they do not answer it builds your case.  Remember Vernice Kughlin?

          • Klaus Becker
            If you have found more of these, would appreciate your forwarding the urls to me privately. Each of the five case below were all filed on the same day, 10
            Message 5 of 12 , Jun 2, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              If you have found more of these, would appreciate your forwarding the urls to me privately.  Each of the five case below were all filed on the same day, 10 April 2006 (with one exception: 11 April 2006) at San Diego, Calif; Montgomery, Alabama; Topeka, Kansas, and 2 in Florida: Largo, Winter Park.  Interesting.  I presume there were more filed elsewhere on the same day.  Each case is the same with the same cites and boilerplate, etc.  All being very deceptive in nature.  It still pays to read "Cracking the Code" IMHO for its informational value.
              Klaus in Iowa
               
              ----- Original Message -----
              Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 3:02 AM
              Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: letter from CA

              I would be very WARY of "Cracking the Code".

              It appears that the IRS & DOJ are going after many of those who have used it's METHODS & obtained REFUNDS.

              http://www.usdoj. gov/tax/Dowling_ Complaint. pdf

              http://www.usdoj. gov/tax/Golson_ Complaint. pdf

              http://www.usdoj. gov/tax/Gerstenk orn_Complaint. pdf

              http://www.usdoj. gov/tax/Spitzer_ Complaint. pdf

              http://www.usdoj. gov/tax/Artman_ Complaint. pdf

              Patrick in California

              "It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin' on ya is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so." -- Uncle Remus

              --- In tips_and_tricks@ yahoogroups. com, Tracy Darling <tdarling1@. ..> wrote:
              >
              > Hello, All:
              > I am deeply grateful to all of you for your comments. I apologize for the
              > delay in reply, but I have been a bit overwhelmed by the responses and
              > support I have had in this matter! I purchased the "Cracking the Code" book
              > and am reading it now.

            • BOB GREGORY
              *I acknowledge that this is a confusing area. And I suspect that the IRS/DOJ are continuing with one of their common tactics, that of using federal judges who
              Message 6 of 12 , Jun 2, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                I acknowledge that this is a confusing area.  And I suspect that the IRS/DOJ are continuing with
                one of their common tactics, that of using federal judges who get their pay from the federal
                government and on whom the IRS allegedly maintains dossiers, to "interpret" the law in their
                favor.  It is the same approach used to erode the bill of rights.  Back in the 1930's federal judges lobbied long and hard against the Public Salary Tax Act (which violates Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution) until they sold out their principles in exchange for having the law exclude judges already on the bench.  Once they were required to pay income taxes (as federal employees)  the IRS had a way to control and influence them

                The Dowling Complaint indicates that the IRS made an "error" when it processed Mr. Dowling's
                return and allowed the Form 4582 correction.  An "error" like that might be understandable
                occasionally in a big organization.  However, the IRS has been fairly regularly committing the
                same "error" as more and more people use Hendrickson's approach.  So far, Hendrickson has
                received reports of refunds or credits totaling over ten million dollars ($10,000,000).  If the
                Dowling "error" was made in 2004, it almost indicates a case of terminal stupidity for the IRS
                to be continuing to make the same "error" five years later, particularly when many of the cases
                involve the IRS questioning the returns, entering protracted correspondence with the filers of
                the returns and finally resolving the matters in the filers' favor.  Are they just trying to drum up later
                business for the DOJ?

                Certainly following Hendrickson's approach is a personal choice and not without some risk.
                You pays your money and takes your choice, or you doesn't pays your money and takes
                your choice.

                There is a small chance that sooner or later large numbers (20 or 30 million) more people will wake up and join the 60+ million the IRS acknowledges are already not filing tax returns, and that will seriously overload the IRS administrative and  prosecutorial system.  Educating that many of America's dumbed-down people about details of the tax code or the administrative and court processes would be a practical impossibility.  But maybe waking them up to the waste, fraud and abuse in the tax system and the government as a whole could be a bit easier.  All it would take would be to make them angry enough to be willing to join millions of others in just stopping filing returns.  Presently there are only about 300+ prosecutions per year among all of the tens of millions of non-filers.  Of course there are many more administrative actions.  But if the volume of non-filers grew to a seriously unmanageable size, what could they do?  Resistance to tyranny through civil disobedience is how Martin Luther King worked against segregation and how Gandhi achieved the independence of India.   It would probably work to end the income tax.       

                On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 3:02 AM, paradoxmagnus <paradoxmagnus@...> wrote:


                I would be very WARY of "Cracking the Code".

                It appears that the IRS & DOJ are going after many of those who have used it's METHODS & obtained REFUNDS.

                http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/Dowling_Complaint.pdf

                http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/Golson_Complaint.pdf

                http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/Gerstenkorn_Complaint.pdf

                http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/Spitzer_Complaint.pdf

                http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/Artman_Complaint.pdf

                Patrick in California


              • BOB GREGORY
                It may be worth considering to put the ball back in their court by asking them to supply copies of whatever information they have which indicates that you had
                Message 7 of 12 , Jun 2, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  It may be worth considering to put the ball back in their court by asking them to supply copies of whatever information they have which indicates that you had income.

                  Roger Hattman wrote:

                  Just a suggestion:  I might be very careful how you word you letter. 



                • Frog Farmer
                  ... CA is a figment of the imagination, but definitely a federal zone . ... In that they too are imaginary? The feds might be more real. To really have an
                  Message 8 of 12 , Jun 3, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Roger Hattman wrote:

                    > Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: letter from CA

                    "CA" is a figment of the imagination, but definitely a "federal zone".

                    > Just a suggestion: I might be very careful how you word you letter.
                    > I have never dealt with the California Franchise Tax Board, so I make
                    > the assumption that they are like the feds.

                    In that they too are imaginary? The feds might be more real. To really
                    have an FTB, you need qualified people. Unless you like to let
                    unqualified people mess with you. You can do that any time you feel
                    like it.

                    > That is, they probably flag you as "resister" or whatever.

                    Probably, whoever's there anticipating the next paycheck would do that,
                    but to call them "the Board" is a BIG ASSUMPTION that may not be a good
                    one.

                    > Most likely you are not flagged yet.

                    Most likely. I know I am. The last time they mistakenly bumped into
                    me, two phone calls took care of everything after I thought about it
                    over a weekend, even when the paperwork threatened the worst. I got the
                    feeling my file was up to date!

                    > So watch you wording carefully. Some wording I would question "
                    > I did not have taxable income according to my understanding of the
                    > term"

                    Nobody cares what you think of the term! Are you a lawyer?! That's
                    what they always ask me. I ask for a referral to one with his B&P6067
                    papers in order. Haven't got one for decades now.

                    Most Californians are so anxious to play the game, the game that is
                    OVER, that they permit all kinds of unqualified, disqualifiable knaves
                    to portray officers in sham proceedings designed to influence the
                    gullible public. Then they complain that the outcome wasn't to their
                    liking.

                    Regards,

                    FF
                  • mn_chicago
                    Wednesday 3 June 2009 Why is everyone dancing around the issue? The STATE OF CALIFORNIA is asserting a claim. the burden is on them to prove it. Could it be
                    Message 9 of 12 , Jun 3, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Wednesday 3 June 2009

                      Why is everyone dancing around the issue?

                      The STATE OF CALIFORNIA is asserting a claim.
                      the burden is on them to prove it. Could it
                      be any simpler?

                      "Write back that you want to dispute them, but
                      do it in a way as to not p!ss them off...."

                      Great advice. One's rights are on the line,
                      and the choice is to go hat in hand to kind
                      of claim them?

                      A winning tactic?

                      Is it any wonder why people have lost the battle?
                    • The Handyman
                      Can a corporation (IRS) order a man to do anything? Tracy Darling has been ordered to furnish information by a State Taxing Agency. Is she mandated to
                      Message 10 of 12 , Jun 3, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment



                        Can a corporation (IRS) order a man to do anything?

                        Tracy Darling has been ordered to furnish information by a  State Taxing Agency.  Is she mandated to comply? I don’t think so and I have not done so for 31 years because a man is substance and a corporation is form…. and I have no contract with them.  I do not respond because I have no income or wages and am not a corporation. Most people are mixed up about wages and income.  When one labors for anyone, whether it be a corporation (blue sky) or another man, it can only be earnings that the IRS calls wages.  Never admit you have wages.  Earnings of a man are not taxable. Earnings of a man have never been declared to be income. Please prove me wrong. As to "voluntary compliance", look at the context.  If the word voluntary is dropped, it only means compliance or forced.  Understanding context is not easy, and of course, the DOJ doesn't want laymen to understand it either. I have great difficulty applying context and usually consult with another who is very lazy and won’t write much about such.  Everyone on this group needs to read HALE v. HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43 (1906) near the end to better understand context, persons and the word includes.  Usually, the  “persons” being referred to by the IRS is actually a “juristic person” (a firm, corporation, union, association, or other organization capable of suing and being sued in a court of law” AND/OR “the United States, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any individual, firm, or corporation acting for the United States and with the authorization and consent of the United States” AND/OR “any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity” ) AND/OR “manufacturers, industrialists, merchants, agriculturists, and others to identify their businesses, vocations, or occupations; the names or titles lawfully adopted and used by persons, firms, associations, corporations, companies, unions, and any manufacturing, industrial, commercial, agricultural, or other organizations engaged in trade or commerce and capable of suing and being sued in a court of law” using a “trade name” or a “commercial name”? These persons have income and wages. Notice that man is not included.

                        Under "Context", usually there are two separate phrases: a general, and a particular phrase.  The general phrase proceeds, and the particular phrase follows, and controls.  The general phrase is the substantive, while the particular is procedural.  The general or substantive phrase is repugnant to particular phrase.  So the general or substantive phrase is removed, otherwise, the whole statute or whatever you are interpreting would be un-constitutional.  This also applies to all definitions, being that all statutes have ambiguous words or words with several meanings. This is my best interpretation of the word "Context", as used in THE LAW.  I always go the last word in the definition of words, and that is the particular part.  An example is how they define the word State in the motor vehicle code.  The last word in the definition of State is: a Province of Canada!!!!!!!    If you learn this, you will see how the attorneys can change this to steal from a man, by making the general or substantive part, particular, they are so sly and deceptive.  I would not respond or use any form sent by any  government agency because they have Legal Attachment Notices under procedural law, which a substantive man cannot use.  Can a corporation (IRS) order a man to do anything? Not unless he is involved in commerce and then such is questionable.

                        15 USC 1127 states in part: 

                        The word “commerce” means all commerce which may lawfully be regulated by Congress.

                        HALE v. HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43 (1906) said the following:

                         

                        "The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen.

                        He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way.

                        His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or

                         to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an

                        Investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such

                         duty to the state, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the

                        Protection

                        Of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of

                        The land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can

                         only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance

                        With the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate

                         himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or

                        Seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public

                        So long as he does not trespass upon their rights.  

                         

                        Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is

                        Presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives

                        Certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to

                        The laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are

                         limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its

                        Charter. Its rights to [201 U.S. 43, 75]   act as a corporation are

                         only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation." 

                        When was the first suit filed by a corporation against a man and where was that suit filed?

                        ----- Original Message -----
                        Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 9:23 PM
                        Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: letter from CA

                        It may be worth considering to put the ball back in their court by asking them to supply copies of whatever information they have which indicates that you had income.

                        Roger Hattman wrote:

                        Just a suggestion:  I might be very careful how you word you letter. 



                      • Al Cintra-Leite
                        Found this in a book called IRS HUMBUG by Frank Kowalik , complains that they exempted themselves , but I see it as exempting all income derived
                        Message 11 of 12 , Jun 4, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Found this in a book called "IRS HUMBUG" by Frank Kowalik , complains
                          that "they" exempted themselves , but I see it as exempting all income
                          derived therefrom,just like it says, that is , the greenbacks in your
                          wallet....
                          12 U.S.C. Sec.531 Exemption from taxation.
                          Federal Reserve Banks, including the capital stock and surplus
                          therein, and the income derived therefrom shall be exempt from Federal,
                          State, and local taxation , except taxes on real estate.
                          Dec. 23,1913, C.6,sec. 7, 38 stat.258
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.