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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Additions to Tax?

Expand Messages
  • BOB GREGORY
    *There is a code section (26 USC 6020) that allows the Secretary to prepare returns, but the IRS hardly ever has the guts to do that. Any return prepared by
    Message 1 of 17 , Aug 2 7:04 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      There is a code section (26 USC 6020) that allows the Secretary to prepare returns, but the IRS hardly ever has the guts to do that.  Any return prepared by the Secretary or any of his designates must be signed and must be signed under penalty of perjury.  Whoever signs a return bears the burden of that penalty, if applicable.    However, by law, "Any return so made and subscribed by the Secretary shall be prima facie good and sufficient for all legal purposes."   I presume that the IRS would interpret that to mean that it is presumed to be accurate and not subject to challenge as to accuracy.  The problem is that the IRS does not play by the rules and throws together a dummy return (called a Substitute for Return) just to cause an event in the master file and then proceeds to "examine" that return based on available information and to "assess" an amount that they presume to be due from the "taxpayer."

      If you actually submitted a return and an examination was done which resulted in a change in tax due, that's a different matter. 


      On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 7:42 PM, John Hill <otoman@...> wrote:
       

      

      I am finalizing my reply for tax court regarding an IRS reply to my tax court petition. There is a section of the code that states something like, "any additions to a tax made by the Secretary, the Secretary bears the burden of proof for such additions." I have searched and searched and cannot find the section I am referring to. My time is running short and I would appreciate it if anyone could advise me if they know the section I am referring to. I am not referring to sections 7491, 6201(d), or 6703.
       
                                                                   Thanks,  John
      __


    • John Hill
      RE: If you actually submitted a return and an examination was done which resulted in a change in tax due, that s a different matter. I submitted a tax return
      Message 2 of 17 , Aug 2 8:20 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        
        RE:
        "If you actually submitted a return and an examination was done which resulted in a change in tax due, that's a different matter." 
         
        I submitted a tax return late, after a substitute for return was made. But before any deficiency notice. My return was a Hendrickson style return. The IRS claims my return is a "frivolous tax return" and sent me the typical CP-15 letter.
         
        Much of what is said in this forum is factual as it pertains to law. However, unless a person has actually been to tax court they are unaware of how little the law means to the IRS and to the tax court. I have been to tax court loaded to the hilt with genuine issues of material fact, which the IRS claimed there was none. The judge totally ignored my factual evidence and found in favor of the IRS. I used their own records against them and he ignored what I presented. My motion to vacate and motion for reconsideration were rubber stamped "denied" by the clerk and filed under the same file number!!! Separate motions are normally filed under different file numbers and denied separately. Only my motion to vacate was stamped denied and the motion for reconsideration was buried in that file but not stamped denied. That case is now in the appeals process.
         
        The case I am now dealing with, and presented before this group, is for another year. The judge literally provided defense for the IRS before they even responded to my petition! I need all sections of the code that say that the burden of proof is on the Secretary when there has been an addition to a tax.    Thanks again. 




      • Jake
        The Tax Court is an administrative tribunal, not a court of law.  When you file in the TC you not only put yourself under IRS jurisdiction, you re admitting
        Message 3 of 17 , Aug 5 7:27 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          The Tax Court is an administrative tribunal, not a court of law.  When you file in the TC you not only put yourself under IRS jurisdiction, you're admitting that you owe something, but disagree with the IRS over how much and the burden of proof is on you.
          By "Hendrickson style return" I'm assuming you mean a "Substitute for Form W-2, etc." on Form 4852 & a "zero" Form 1040 type "return" - if so, you lose.  Pete got 33 months in prison over that & I doubt if you want to join him. 
          Yeah, they did an SFR for you & that's a fraud / scam, but @ this point there's nothing you can do about it & I'd say it would be wise to cut your losses now. 
          ~ ~ ~

          RE:
          "If you actually submitted a return and an
          examination was done which resulted in a change in tax due, that's a different
          matter."
        • John Hill
          RE: Moderator/Bear: I m letting this on, even though it has unanswered questions because I believe they are not Socratic in nature. If you know the answers to
          Message 4 of 17 , Aug 5 9:49 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            RE:

            Moderator/Bear: I'm letting this on, even though it has unanswered questions because I believe they are not Socratic in nature. If you know the answers to these questions; post 'em. :-)
             



            The Tax Court is an administrative tribunal, not a court of law.  When you file in the TC you not only put yourself under IRS jurisdiction, you're admitting that you owe something, but disagree with the IRS over how much and the burden of proof is on you.
            By "Hendrickson style return" I'm assuming you mean a "Substitute for Form W-2, etc." on Form 4852 & a "zero" Form 1040 type "return" - if so, you lose.  Pete got 33 months in prison over that & I doubt if you want to join him. 
            Yeah, they did an SFR for you & that's a fraud / scam, but @ this point there's nothing you can do about it & I'd say it would be wise to cut your losses now.
            RESPONSE: It is obvious that many suggestions from this group are well intended. But much of those suggestions are from people who lack true experience in fighting the IRS. It is well to hide your "non-taxable" income if you can, since the IRS claims that all "income" is taxable under an income tax. However, for those that hide such "non-taxable" income and claim victory over the IRS I will say: A VERY SHALLOW VICTORY. For those that have ever truly fought with the IRS are very well aware that if they see income of any kind, even non-taxable income, they will levy everything you have if you do not fight them with their laws and utilize what Congress has given us to fight with. I will admit that there are very few wins in TAX COURT itself, however, there are more wins in the appeals court that are buried.
            I must ask, is it not required by law to rebut that which you know is not true and if you fail to rebut, you have admitted by acquiescence that what the IRS claims is true. I made the mistake of not responding to the tax court to a Notice of Deficiency and at that point the IRS has there hooks in you. Even though I responded to the Notice of Deficiency to the IRS, and challenged them in many ways as suggested in this group, the judge totally ignored the fact that the IRS failed to provide me with due process. BECAUSE OF WHAT THE LAW SAYS! The tax court looks at it as if you admitted by sworn declaration that you owe the tax that the IRS claims you owe. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS. Your chances are better if you respond to the Notice of Deficiency to the tax court. OR, you can just ignore all the Notices sent to you by the IRS and then watch them levy your property and put you on the street.
            The IRS does not back down like they did 15-20 years ago when presented with the fact that you know the truth about the income tax system. They ROLL OVER YOU in the name of "estoppel by acquiescence." I have over 300 pages of correspondence on public record with them. Loaded with valid questions, my own Notice and Demands, and affidavits. THEY IGNORE YOU and they just keep coming and they take your property when you fail to respond to their 30 and 90 day notices. THEN, the law is truly on their side. After all, your silence to the court has claimed you guilty.  
            So, the question is, do I cower and pay a tax that I know that I do not legally owe, or do I stand up for my rights and work the best I can within the system that is before me? Corrupt or not. That is a question that each and every person must ask themselves. One thing I do know. Those in this forum can quote all the law it wants and pretend like the IRS is going to not play dirty within the law and roll over just because the law says what it says. Those in this forum that have never had any real confrontation with the IRS because they have the privilege of choosing an easy way out have no right to quote law and give advise in the midst of pretending like they have victory over the IRS. I will say, TIS' A LAME VICTORY simply because you have the privilege of hiding non-taxable income.
            Pete Hendrickson may have been convicted and sentenced, but it is naive and downright cowardice to say that he was convicted because he was truly guilty of the charges brought before him. EVEN IF he was wrong about the law and the way he did things, which I do not believe he was, he is still not guilty simply because this great patriot believed what he was doing with all his heart. Has everyone out there forgot that WILLFULNESS is a must to be convicted of the crime that he was convicted of? Does anyone out there, except the manipulated jury, actually believe that Pete Hendrickson knew and believed he was breaking the law and proceeded to do so WILLINGLY??? 
            As far as the tax court being an administrative tribunal, SO WHAT? They are still bound by laws governing administrative procedure. My next question is a sincere question. Is there any other option other than tax court that Congress has given us to deal with an IRS "Notice of Deficiency," a Final Notice of Intent to Levy, and a Notice of Federal Tax Lien??? If so, please let us all know. Or as previously stated, do we just let these notices go by and in the end watch our property be unjustifiably taken from us? But then again, would it be unjustifiable? Did we not ourselves just let it happen? Is there anyone out there that has just ignored all of these notices and in the end the IRS just goes away and they live happily ever after? How many of us have seen the opposite? My guess is, the opposite wins!

             

             
          • Henry Leyva
            From: Henry Jake wrote: By Hendrickson style return I m assuming you mean a Substitute for Form W-2, etc. on Form 4852 & a zero Form 1040 type return
            Message 5 of 17 , Aug 5 11:04 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              From:  Henry
              Jake wrote: By "Hendrickson style return" I'm assuming you mean a "Substitute for Form W-2, etc." on Form 4852 & a "zero" Form 1040 type "return" - if so, you lose.  Pete got 33 months in prison over that & I doubt if you want to join him. 
              What Jake fails to tell you is why Pete Hendrickson was given 33 months in jail.  It is for the same reason Larken Rose, Shiff, etc., etc also went to prison.  It is for the same reason that Bannister was stripped of his CPA license.  It is for the same reason that Sherry Jackson, a CPA who worked for the IRS was convicted and is now in prison, too.
              It is for the same reason that Dave Champion expects to go to prison. See
               
              Pete Hendrickson is going to jail because the Judge is corrupt and the DOJ is corrupt. They colluded to convict Pete. It is all pre-planned.  For instance:  One Juror was kicked out because he wanted to read the code sections.  Pete's attorney failed to present key evidence that might have convinced the jurors of Pete's innocence. The Judge instructed the jury on  the law (code)!.  There is no "Hendrickson style return"- Read the Book! 
              Pete has followed the law to the letter.  The Jury was set up to convict. The Judge and the IRS are corrupt.  I have been battling the IRS for years.  I am right, the IRS is wrong.
              If I ever have to go to prison because I am right and the IRS is wrong, So Be IT.
            • Jake
                    It is obvious that many suggestions from this group are well intended. But much of those suggestions are from people who lack true experience in
              Message 6 of 17 , Aug 5 11:38 PM
              • 0 Attachment

                     > It is obvious that many suggestions from this group are well intended. But much of those suggestions are from people who lack true experience in fighting the IRS.


                That's true in any forum such as this, in local face-to-face group meetings, etc. - anywhere tax law / issues are discussed.  FWIW, I started researching the statutes, regulations & case law in 1991, have been ever since, got out of "the system" & have assisted others since 1996.  I don't know it all & nobody does, one reason being that statutes & especially regulations keep changing, but you soon learn the IRS operates on presumption & procedure.


                     > For those that have ever truly fought with the IRS are very well aware that if they see income of any kind, even non-taxable income, they will levy everything you have if you do not fight them with their laws and utilize what Congress has given us to fight with.


                There's a better way to go about it.  You've heard the computer saying, "garbage in, garbage out", well here's another one - nothing in, nothing out.  The Individual Master File ("IMF") system goes by taxpayer ID number (SSN for "individuals") in numerical order, not by name, address, etc. & as long as there are forms being generated & sent to the IRS with "your" SSN on them, that number is in "the system" & computer-generated form letters, notices of deficiency, etc. will be generated by that system.  In other words, the reason I haven't had issues with the IRS for nearly 20 years is that there are no W-2's, 1099's, etc. generated anywhere with a SSN that can be applied to me in any way, shape or form.  


                It's the activity the SSN is tied to / involved in & the forms generated therefrom which triggers IRS action & if there are no forms being sent to the IRS with a SSN that used to file returns, although some form-letters requesting information will kick out for a while, eventually that account will be "shelved" & that SSN is considered "dead".  You may have seen the "we haven't received your return" letters I also call the "give us the rope to hang you with" letters - fill in the blank, check the appropriate box - are you single, married, head of household, etc.  This is especially important regarding the "SFR" (substitute for return) issue - the IRS cites section 6020(b) & never mentions 6020(a), but if you didn't file a return & answer that form-letter, you have given them the authority to do an SFR under 6020(a).

                 

                Look it up - 26 U.S.C. 6020:

                http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00006020----000-.html


                If you give them the requested information & sign a form, they can legally do an SFR, but if you don't they can't.  But they'll do one under 6020(b) anyway.  However, 6020(b) only applies to certain types of returns:


                IRM Part 5.1.11.6.8 (03-01-2007):

                IRC 6020(b) Authority

                1. The following returns may be prepared, signed and executed by revenue officers under the authority of IRC 6020(b):
                  A. Form 940, Employer’s Annual Federal Unemployment Tax Return;
                  B. Form 941, Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return;
                  C. Form 944, Employer’s Annual Federal Tax Return;
                  D. Form 720, Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return;
                  E. Form 2290, Heavy Vehicle Use Tax Return;
                  F. Form CT-1, Employer’s Annual Railroad Retirement Tax Return;
                  G. Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership income.


                Any of those apply to you?  Or more importantly from the procedural aspect, the SSN applied to your name?


                     > I must ask, is it not required by law to rebut that which you know is not true and if you fail to rebut, you have admitted by acquiescence that what the IRS claims is true.


                Yes, but remember that TC is not a court of law & it doesn't consider legal arguments, other than those which deal with procedural issues.


                     > I made the mistake of not responding to the tax court to a Notice of Deficiency


                You can be 100% right on subject-matter issues & still lose due to a procedural error(s).  Unfortunately very few people understand that - whether you like the voluminous administrative procedures or not is irrelevant - either follow them properly or lose.


                     > The tax court looks at it as if you admitted by sworn declaration that you owe the tax that the IRS claims you owe.


                That's true - and you did by filing in the TC.  I've seen people claim they were "dragged" into TC - nope - you have to file there for the case to be there & when you do, you are saying the TC is the proper venue to resolve your issue.  If it's only over dollar amounts & you do file returns you'd be right - but if you're bringing up issues of law regarding whether or not the particular tax applies to you, etc., you'd be wrong.  You cannot challenge the "underlying liability" in the TC - although a lot of people try - the liability is presumed to exist & in effect you said it does by filing in the TC in the 1st place.  Also, the IRS "enjoys the presumption of correctness" & the burden of proof is on you to show that the $$$ amounts are wrong.


                     > So, the question is, do I cower and pay a tax that I know that I do not legally owe, or do I stand up for my rights and work the best I can within the system that is before me?


                From what you've said, especially including the "Hendrickson style return", I'd say cut you losses now, learn from your mistakes & change how you do things so you don't get in the situation again.  I'm not being critical, just realistic & I've seen relatively similar situations 100 times.


                     > Pete Hendrickson may have been convicted and sentenced, but it is naive and downright cowardice to say that he was convicted because he was truly guilty of the charges brought before him.


                It most assuredly is not & if you'd have followed the case from indictment to sentencing as I have you'd know that.  Was he guilty of what he was charged with?  Yes.  Did the court ignore numerous issues he raised?  Yes.  But they were IRRELEVANT to the charges of "filing false documents" under 26 U.S.C. 7206(1).


                     > EVEN IF he was wrong about the law and the way he did things, which I do not believe he was, he is still not guilty simply because this great patriot believed what he was doing with all his heart. 


                But he didn't use the "Cheek defense" regarding the issue of "willfulness" - as in I may have been wrong technically, but I didn't "intentionally violate a known legal duty."  (Cheek v. U.S., 498 U.S. 192 (1991)).


                     > My next question is a sincere question. Is there any other option other than tax court that Congress has given us to deal with an IRS "Notice of Deficiency," a Final Notice of Intent to Levy, and a Notice of Federal Tax Lien???

                 

                Sure there is, but there's certainly not enough space here to cover all the administrative & judicial procedures, or to cover what I've learned in the last 19+ years - you'll need to do that research yourself - or pay someone who already has.  I realize that people keep looking for the "silver bullet" but it doesn't exist.  The best way is to get out of "the system", but that's not easy & it's a lot harder now than it was 15-20 years ago. 

                 
                     > Or as previously stated, do we just let these notices go by and in the end watch our property be unjustifiably taken from us?


                If you ignore the notices, you will certainly lose, but even if you cross all your t's & dot all your i's you still might lose - however, if you do follow all the procedures properly, you give yourself a fighting chance.  But again, getting out of "the system" is the best way.  I don't worry about anyone taking "my" property because I don't own any - "in this life it's not important what you own, just what you control" & that's why G-d invented trusts.


                If you cannot do what you do for a living as an independent contractor & are "stuck" being an "employee", you're going to have to deal with "the system" one way or another & in that case, it is incumbent upon you to learn how the system applies to your situation.  If you don't, you have only yourself to blame. But if you can work your way out of "the system" as I did & many others have too, then you can reduce your exposure to it, down to virtually -0-.  As the old saying goes, "there's more than one way to skin a cat" & there is no "one size fits all" solution to IRS (& State) tax problems, but for any given situation, there will be a way to reduce / minimize the problems - if you're willing to take the time to find it.


                ~ ~ ~



                --- On Thu, 8/5/10, John Hill <otoman@...> wrote:

                From: John Hill <otoman@...>
                Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Additions to Tax?
                To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                Date:
              • Jake
                      What Jake fails to tell you is why Pete Hendrickson was given 33 months in jail. That was covered in detail in earlier discussions. ~ ~ ~
                Message 7 of 17 , Aug 5 11:40 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                       > What Jake fails to tell you is why Pete Hendrickson was given 33 months in jail.
                  That was covered in detail in earlier discussions.

                  ~ ~ ~
                • BOB GREGORY
                  *Henry is right. The deck is stacked, and no matter whether you use a dumb, simple argument, a smart, simple argument, a dumb, complicated argument or a
                  Message 8 of 17 , Aug 6 12:49 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Henry is right.  The deck is stacked, and no matter whether you use a dumb, simple argument, a smart, simple argument, a dumb, complicated argument or a smart, sophisticated argument does not really matter. 

                    The best tactic (other than rolling over and playing dead for the IRS) is to develop a really good asset protection plan to keep stuff out of the reach of the enemy. 
                    Owning stuff is not as important as controlling it.  It does no good to file as Hendrickson suggests, not because it is not right under the law but because the IRS/DOJ/Tax Court/Federal Courts are a criminal consortium.  Unless you want to spend a huge part of your life and a lot of money tilting at windmills, you will be well advised to develop a profile as low as possible and wait for the collapse.  The government is broke and desperate, but it has the power to squash you like a bug if you make a big deal out of anything.

                    If I ever HAVE to go to prison because I'm right and the IRS is wrong, so be it, but if I ain't volunteering.  If the IRS is wrong and takes some money that is rightfully mine, but it is not a lot of money, I don't like it, but I won't get into a major peeing contest over it.  It's similar to paying "protection" to Al Capone.

                    If twenty or thirty million people would simply REFUSE to file tax returns, standing together and taking their chances, I would be right there with them.  But the vast majority of people are talkers and not doers.  They want to watch Hendrickson and Larken Rose, and Joe Bannister and others and "see what happens."  They don't understand that the answer would be mass disobedience.  The government could not deal with that, and things would change.  But it is not likely to happen because too many people are watchers.

                                                         
                    "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately"

                                                                                                        --  Benjamin Franklin
                         

                    ========================

                    On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Henry Leyva <hawkco7@...> wrote:
                     

                    From:  Henry
                    Jake wrote: By "Hendrickson style return" I'm assuming you mean a "Substitute for Form W-2, etc." on Form 4852 & a "zero" Form 1040 type "return" - if so, you lose.  Pete got 33 months in prison over that & I doubt if you want to join him. 
                    What Jake fails to tell you is why Pete Hendrickson was given 33 months in jail.  It is for the same reason Larken Rose, Shiff, etc., etc also went to prison.  It is for the same reason that Bannister was stripped of his CPA license.  It is for the same reason that Sherry Jackson, a CPA who worked for the IRS was convicted and is now in prison, too.
                    It is for the same reason that Dave Champion expects to go to prison. See
                     
                    Pete Hendrickson is going to jail because the Judge is corrupt and the DOJ is corrupt. They colluded to convict Pete. It is all pre-planned.  For instance:  One Juror was kicked out because he wanted to read the code sections.  Pete's attorney failed to present key evidence that might have convinced the jurors of Pete's innocence. The Judge instructed the jury on  the law (code)!.  There is no "Hendrickson style return"- Read the Book! 
                    Pete has followed the law to the letter.  The Jury was set up to convict. The Judge and the IRS are corrupt.  I have been battling the IRS for years.  I am right, the IRS is wrong.
                    If I ever have to go to prison because I am right and the IRS is wrong, So Be IT.


                  • Frog Farmer
                    ... I may have an opinion...let s see... ... What about a special appearance just to challenge jurisdiction? I m a novice about Tax Court, never having been
                    Message 9 of 17 , Aug 7 8:19 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > If you know the answers to these questions; post 'em.

                      I may have an opinion...let's see...

                      > The Tax Court is an administrative tribunal, not a court of law. �When
                      > you file in the TC you not only put yourself under IRS jurisdiction,
                      > you're admitting that you owe something, but disagree with the IRS
                      > over how much and the burden of proof is on you.

                      What about a special appearance just to challenge jurisdiction? I'm a
                      novice about Tax Court, never having been that far down the road yet.

                      > It is obvious that many suggestions from this group are well
                      > intended. But much of those suggestions are from people who�lack true
                      > experience in fighting the IRS.

                      I have true experience...

                      > It is well to hide your "non-taxable"
                      > income if you can,

                      If it is non-taxable, why hide it? How do you know it is income?

                      > since the IRS claims that all "income" is taxable
                      > under an income tax.

                      They do??! I don't think so.... can you show me?

                      > However, for those that hide such "non-taxable"
                      > income and claim victory over the IRS I will say: A VERY SHALLOW
                      > VICTORY.

                      Victory is for when there is an issue. What is the issue when you speak
                      of non-taxable income that you advise hiding? I believe that people's
                      inability to speak properly about the topic leads to most problems. You
                      know people make false admissions and confessions out of ignorance,
                      don't you?

                      > For those that have ever truly fought with the IRS are very
                      > well aware that if they see income of any kind, even non-taxable
                      > income,

                      "See"??!! In the same sense as "imagine"? Where is this "seeing" done?
                      What realm? What paradigm? So do YOU "see" income?

                      > they will levy everything you have if you do not fight them
                      > with their laws and utilize what Congress has given us to fight
                      > with.

                      Really?! Real levy? Or the fake notices that some county clerks no
                      longer accept unsubstantiated?

                      >�I will admit that there are very few wins in TAX COURT itself,
                      > however, there are more wins in the appeals court that are buried.

                      But that number is insignificant to the many "wins" achieved much much
                      earlier in the whole "process". And sorry to say, those are not a
                      matter of public record because they were never "permitted" to get to
                      that point, because false assumptions and false charges are refuted "sua
                      sponte" instead of being meekly overlooked. This all is caused by the
                      reaction of the individual in real time, where waiting for general
                      consensus among the rest of the herd is not a luxury to be afforded.

                      > I must ask, is it not�required by law to rebut that which you know is
                      > not true and if you fail to rebut, you have admitted by acquiescence
                      > that what the IRS�claims is true.

                      There you go! Absolutely! Now go even one level deeper into the
                      foundation of the situation. Call ALL presumptions and assumptions into
                      question. It's a hard game to play. It's like poker. Everyone can
                      play but most don't win.

                      > I made the mistake of not responding
                      > to the tax court to�a Notice of Deficiency and at that point the IRS
                      > has there hooks in you.

                      Wow! It seems to me that they'd have to have hooks in you for a long
                      time to get to the point of issuing that notice.

                      > Even though I responded to the Notice of
                      > Deficiency to the IRS, and challenged them in many ways as
                      > suggested�in this group, the judge totally ignored the fact that the
                      > IRS failed to provide me with due process.�BECAUSE OF WHAT THE LAW
                      > SAYS!

                      I wish you had provided citations to that effect right here. I see you
                      prefer to generalize and attribute human-type things to inanimate
                      imaginary entities, like:

                      > The tax court looks at it as if
                      &
                      > the IRS claims

                      If someone is looking at something and is incorrect in what they see, it
                      is usually possible for the more observant correctly-seeing entity to be
                      able to illuminate further for the less-optically-endowed one. There
                      are many exposes about how untrained paycheck anticipators misinterpret
                      facts to suit their preconceived ideas motivated by factors other than
                      the public interest. When one knows this and sees it happening, one
                      must illuminate the situation not only for the incorrectly perceiving
                      ones, but for the public record, the witnesses all around one. One MUST
                      (or not!) present one's case in the IMOC (Initial Moment Of
                      Confrontation). Otherwise, witnesses (and the record) may perceive the
                      false to appear real. And it is SO HARD to recover from errors that
                      should not ever have been made, such as admissions and confessions made
                      out of ignorance or other motivation.

                      > you admitted by sworn
                      > declaration that you owe�the tax that the IRS claims you owe.�NOTHING
                      > ELSE MATTERS.

                      And where again was it that they believe you did this sworn declaration?
                      They weren't using your signature on an account application or your
                      endorsement on a "check" in a bank account, or a signed W-4 form, or any
                      other of myriad places where people usually make certain useful
                      admissions and confessions?

                      > Your chances are better if you respond to the Notice of
                      > Deficiency to the tax court.�OR, you can just ignore all the Notices
                      > sent to you by the IRS and then watch them levy your property and put
                      > you on the street.

                      How about never getting that far as getting the notice? Doesn't a lot
                      have to occur before that stage is usually reached? I know that in my
                      own case, I actively engaged them at their offices, several times. And
                      they ran and hid and never came back. They did call me "an asshole".
                      It must have been something I said. My situation was witnessed by
                      members of "the public". I haven't heard from them in many years and
                      they DO know where I live, because they've been here.

                      > The IRS does not back down like they did 15-20 years ago when
                      > presented with the fact that you know the truth�about the income tax
                      > system. They ROLL OVER YOU�in the name of "estoppel by acquiescence."

                      Well, there is such a concept, and most people do acquiescence, don't
                      they? I can get most people to admit to false things within a few
                      minutes, and as soon as I show them I did it, they offer some excuse to
                      the effect that everybody would do the same thing, make the same
                      agreement to false facts. And they are RIGHT!!! And most people on
                      this list probably still use FRNs and talk about "dollars". They don't
                      realize that both are a toxic activity! (The Scientist warns, "Don't do
                      this at home!")

                      > I have over 300 pages of correspondence on public record with them.
                      > Loaded with valid questions, my own Notice and Demands, and
                      > affidavits. THEY IGNORE YOU and they just�keep coming�and they�take
                      > your property when you fail to respond to their 30 and 90 day notices.
                      > THEN, the law is truly on their side. After all, your silence to the
                      > court has claimed you guilty.

                      Yeah, so we never want stuff to get to that point...

                      > So, the question is, do I cower and pay a tax that I know that I do
                      > not legally owe,

                      How in Hell could you DO that?!

                      > or do I stand up for my rights and work the best I
                      > can within the system that is before me?

                      I vote for that remedy, but exercised so much earlier that the notices
                      are never generated.

                      > Corrupt or not.�That is a
                      > question that each and every person must ask themselves.

                      I assume corruption from the IMOC and have never been disappointed!
                      Most people are too polite to do that.

                      > One thing I
                      > do know. Those in this�forum can quote all the law it wants and
                      > pretend like the IRS is going to�not play dirty within the law and
                      > roll over just because the law says what it says.

                      Not me! I know that when you show any current tyrant of any stripe any
                      law you think is in your favor, the tyrant will go out of his or her way
                      to violate it and your rights. What you have to do is arrange things so
                      tyrannical individuals "lose face" in the eyes of their co-workers.
                      Every situation is different, but ask yourself, will most people start
                      out cooperating in their own demise, or not? I say they will and do so
                      all the time.

                      > Those in this forum
                      > that have never had any real confrontation with the IRS because they
                      > have the privilege of choosing an easy way out

                      Choosing an easy way out is a right, not a privilege. In fact, the
                      record usually shows a troubled individual to have chosen an easy way IN
                      in the hopes of receiving a privilege. I can usually point out the
                      occurrence of that whenever the specific facts of a specific case are
                      given.

                      > have no right to�quote
                      > law and give advise�in the midst of�pretending like�they have�victory
                      > over the IRS. I will say, TIS' A LAME VICTORY simply because you have
                      > the privilege of hiding non-taxable income.

                      Everyone has the right to quote law, and some have the right and power
                      to declare the law! And pretense of victories where there is no issue
                      is indeed hard to imagine.

                      > Pete Hendrickson may have been convicted and sentenced, but it is
                      > naive and downright cowardice to say that he was convicted because he
                      > was�truly guilty of the charges brought before him. EVEN IF he was
                      > wrong about the law and the way he did things,�which I do not believe
                      > he was, he is still not guilty simply because this great patriot
                      > believed what he was doing with all his heart.�Has everyone�out there
                      > forgot that WILLFULNESS is a must to be convicted of the crime that he
                      > was convicted of?�Does anyone out there, except the manipulated
                      > jury,�actually believe that Pete Hendrickson knew and believed he was
                      > breaking the law and proceeded to do so�WILLINGLY???

                      The jury believed it, or acted as cowards afraid to vote their
                      consciences. Which was it? And which is preferable as an excuse for
                      their vote? I think Pete's main problem was his attorney.

                      > As far as the tax court being an administrative tribunal, SO WHAT?

                      The formal docketed administrative hearing on the record is where the
                      natural man with rights makes his status known to the Leviathan (of any
                      stripe). It is where he declares the law! But it can happen at MANY
                      "administrative" levels and the EARLIER the BETTER! The IMOC is the
                      BEST MOMENT!

                      > They are�still bound by laws governing administrative procedure.

                      Yes, and this is what can make it fun.

                      >�My next question is a sincere question. Is there any other
                      > option other than tax court that Congress has given us to�deal
                      > with an IRS�"Notice of Deficiency," a�Final Notice of Intent
                      > to Levy, and�a Notice of Federal Tax Lien??? If so, please let
                      > us all know.�

                      You could pay the tax up front and then sue for a refund! But I would
                      prefer to never let things get that far. In fact, in my own life,
                      things never have gotten that far. I don't hide anything from the IRS.
                      I've "called them out"! And they leave me alone, and probably there are
                      many more like me.

                      > Or as previously
                      > stated, do we just let these notices go by and in the end watch our
                      > property be unjustifiably taken from us? But then again, would it be
                      > unjustifiable? Did we not ourselves just let it happen?

                      Yes, you keep hitting the truth, that people just let stuff happen
                      because they don't like to engage in hostilities (even at the lower
                      verbal or emotional levels) early on. They try to take the
                      Confrontation out of the IMOC.

                      > Is there
                      > anyone out there that has�just ignored�all of these notices�and in the
                      > end the IRS just goes away and they�live happily ever after?

                      I never got the notices, but they did go away and I do live happily ever
                      after!

                      >�How many
                      > of us have seen the opposite? My guess is, the opposite wins!

                      My guess is, when you lump yourself in with an "us" that is a group of
                      victims by definition, you suffer their fate. I am not a member of any
                      "us", even in my own house with the woman who's been here for 29 years!

                      I can usually get any grouping to reject my membership very quickly!

                      Regards,

                      FF
                    • Frog Farmer
                      ... According to IRS own estimates, it s been over 40 million and growing for over 30 years. ... Hey, too many cliff jumpers are lemmings! Learn to wear a
                      Message 10 of 17 , Aug 7 3:36 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        BOB GREGORY wrote:

                        > If twenty or thirty million people would simply REFUSE to file tax
                        > returns, standing together and taking their chances, I would be right
                        > there with them.

                        According to IRS own estimates, it's been over 40 million and growing
                        for over 30 years.

                        > But the vast majority of people are talkers and not
                        > doers. They want to watch Hendrickson and Larken Rose, and Joe
                        > Bannister and others and "see what happens." They don't understand
                        > that the answer would be mass disobedience. The government could not
                        > deal with that, and things would change. But it is not likely to
                        > happen because too many people are watchers.

                        Hey, too many cliff jumpers are lemmings! Learn to wear a lemming-fur
                        coat and walk backwards facing the same direction of the rushing crowd!

                        Regards,

                        FF
                      • Michael
                        ... This is true but only for a taxpayer. Are you one, would be my question, under the circumstances. ... The best one is to not volunteer in the first
                        Message 11 of 17 , Aug 7 3:42 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, BOB GREGORY <rhgusn@...> wrote:

                          > *Henry is right. The deck is stacked,

                          This is true but only for a "taxpayer." Are you one,
                          would be my question, under the circumstances.



                          > The best tactic...

                          The best one is to not "volunteer" in the first place.
                          Take this as step one, and no other steps apply.



                          > It does no good to file as Hendrickson suggests,
                          > not because it is not right under the law but...

                          If it is not right under the law, why be so willing
                          to break the law would be my question. Step one,
                          it seems to me, is in keeping with the law.




                          > If I ever HAVE to go to prison because I'm right
                          > and the IRS is wrong,

                          If you do end up in prison, I am guessing it would
                          be because you broke the law, and the IRS was "right."
                          Life is full of ironies.



                          > so be it, but if I ain't volunteering.

                          Then you would not be a "taxpayer!" Oh, you meant
                          a different kind of volunteering, as in "giving in."



                          > If twenty or thirty million people would simply
                          > REFUSE to file tax returns, standing together and
                          > taking their chances, I would be right there with
                          > them.

                          I do not know the numbers, but I have "read" that
                          there may already be that many who have chosen not
                          to file, but the decision was independent and not
                          based on waiting for en mass approval.

                          I am guessing you are not "right there with them."
                          I never asked anyone's permission to not be
                          a taxpayer. Also, I never viewed it as "taking
                          a chance." To me, it was reading the law.

                          We all make choices...
                        • Jake
                              I may have an opinion...let s see...     The Tax Court is an administrative tribunal, not a court of law.  When you file in the TC you not only put
                          Message 12 of 17 , Aug 7 5:27 PM
                          • 0 Attachment

                               > I may have an opinion...let's see...

                               >> The Tax Court is an administrative tribunal, not a court of law.  When you file in the TC you not only put yourself under IRS jurisdiction, you're admitting that you owe something, but disagree with the IRS over how much and the burden of proof is on you.

                               > What about a special appearance just to challenge jurisdiction?  


                            How can you challenge the jurisdiction of the tribunal YOU voluntarily filed in?  You give the TC jurisdiction over both you and the subject matter when you file there.


                            < snip >


                            ~ ~ ~


                          • BOB GREGORY
                            *Actually, according to the IRS s own estimates there are around 63 million non-filers. I meant twenty or thirty million MORE. The base of over 60 million
                            Message 13 of 17 , Aug 8 12:48 AM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Actually, according to the IRS's own estimates there are around 63 million non-filers.  I meant twenty or thirty million MORE.  The base of over 60 million are bottom-of-the-barrel folks who don't earn much and thus don't owe much tax (even according to the IRS).  A lot of them bounce from job to job and/or get paid under the table.  The reason there are so many is that the IRS figures that it would cost more to go after them than they could get out of them.  But 20 or 30 million MORE would include a pretty large chunk of people who pay a lot of the taxes.  That would get their attention, but there are not enough assets to send all the letters, file all the notices of liens, initiate all the notices of intent to levy and notices of levy, execute the levies, etc.  And, generally, only around 300 or so cases per year are actually prosecuted in court, because of the limitations of DOJ personnel and court dockets. 

                              If people were to take such mass action and also change their W4's to minimum withholding, it would keep a huge amount of money from going into the hands of the IRS.  
                              Of course, if people in the top 5% income level were to stop, the IRS would have apoplexy, since they pay over 53% of all income taxes.  They would probably design a plan to selectively go after those people with the most vigor because it would have the biggest payoff.  But the people in the 50% to 95% level pay another 43% of all income taxes, and 20 or 30 million just stopping filing and cutting their withholding to a minimum would get everybody's attention.

                              On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Frog Farmer <frogfrmr@...> wrote:
                               

                              BOB GREGORY wrote:

                              > If twenty or thirty million people would simply REFUSE to file tax
                              > returns, standing together and taking their chances, I would be right
                              > there with them.

                              According to IRS own estimates, it's been over 40 million and growing
                              for over 30 years.


                              > But the vast majority of people are talkers and not
                              > doers. They want to watch Hendrickson and Larken Rose, and Joe
                              > Bannister and others and "see what happens." They don't understand
                              > that the answer would be mass disobedience. The government could not
                              > deal with that, and things would change. But it is not likely to
                              > happen because too many people are watchers.

                              Hey, too many cliff jumpers are lemmings! Learn to wear a lemming-fur
                              coat and walk backwards facing the same direction of the rushing crowd!

                              Regards,

                              FF


                            • dave
                              If you read the attachment of rights carefully of what comes with the standard [certified mailer] notices of deficiency you will see a trap laid for the
                              Message 14 of 17 , Aug 8 5:56 AM
                              • 0 Attachment

                                If you read the attachment of rights carefully of what comes with the standard [certified mailer] notices of deficiency you will see a trap laid for the unsuspecting person. Of course this is all dealing with tax court and your “right” to an administrative hearing. The attachment is supposed to explain those rights. There is a series of questions and these are as if YOU are asking them….with responses. I can’t recall the actual words but the jist of the question is “What if I feel I don’t owe the tax?” Can’t you imagine the patriot thinking, “Yes!! That’s the one!! That’s me!! I’ll finally have my day in court to get even with the IRS’s ACS that keeps sending me these letters.”

                                 

                                However notice carefully the answer to the question….for it only deals with the AMOUNT of the tax!  [not the liability for the tax].

                                 

                                Sneaky eh? Folks…tax court is an administrative court for transferees of payments. I doubt you are that. You are already assumed LIABLE for the tax when you invoke the request for the hearing. There is NO salvation in the few pieces of silver due process tossed before you called a hearing….it’s just a trap.

                                 

                                 



                                __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 5349 (20100807) __________

                                The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

                                http://www.eset.com
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.