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

RE: [tips_and_tricks] Legal Fictions

Expand Messages
  • Cyril Grosse
    It would appear that the case you cited has nothing to do with the quote you provided. It is a case regarding the Exhaustion of Administrative Remedy. Cyril
    Message 1 of 19 , Mar 31, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      It would appear that the case you cited has nothing to do with the quote you
      provided. It is a case regarding the Exhaustion of Administrative Remedy.

      Cyril Grosse
      Cyril@...
      ________________________________________________________________
      "A truth's initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie
      was believed. When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to
      the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and
      its speaker, a raving lunatic." --Dresden James

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Paul Lowery [mailto:plowery@...]
      Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 7:41 AM
      To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Legal Fictions



      Good Day All;

      Thought I would throw this out - Found it while searching the "right of
      travel" position. Used it to confuse the ADA and the court forcing them to
      dismiss for lack of SMJ.

      Quote "All codes, rules and regulations are applicable to the government
      authorities only, not human/creators in accordance with God's laws. All
      codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking in due
      process...."
      Rodriques v. Ray Donavan (US Department of Labor), 769 F. 2nd 1344,1348
      (1985).

      Can any one verify this, I have yet to find the decision - would love to
      read it.

      Paul Lowery
      Hermes Architects, Inc.
      713.785.3644
    • paradoxmagnus@earthlink.net
      Congrats on the dismissal! Your belief that you were right probably had more to do with it that this quote. IF this quote exists, it most like from a case or
      Message 2 of 19 , Mar 31, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Congrats on the dismissal! Your belief that you were right probably had
        more to do with it that this quote.

        IF this quote exists, it most like from a case or brief that cited
        Rodriques.

        Pat in California

        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Paul Lowery [mailto:plowery@...]
        > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 7:41 AM
        > To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Legal Fictions
        >
        >
        >
        > Good Day All;
        >
        > Thought I would throw this out - Found it while searching the "right of
        > travel" position. Used it to confuse the ADA and the court forcing them to
        > dismiss for lack of SMJ.
        >
        > Quote "All codes, rules and regulations are applicable to the government
        > authorities only, not human/creators in accordance with God's laws. All
        > codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking in due
        > process...."
        > Rodriques v. Ray Donavan (US Department of Labor), 769 F. 2nd 1344,1348
        > (1985).
        >
        > Can any one verify this, I have yet to find the decision - would love to
        > read it.
        >
        > Paul Lowery
        > Hermes Architects, Inc.
        > 713.785.3644



        --
        No virus found in this outgoing message.
        Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
        Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.0 - Release Date: 3/31/2005
      • paradoxmagnus@earthlink.net
        The 3rd quote says a lot about government. Pat in California The United States is a juristic person in the sense that it has capacity to sue upon contracts
        Message 3 of 19 , Mar 31, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          The 3rd quote says a lot about government.
          Pat in California

          "The United States is a juristic person in the sense that it has capacity to
          sue upon contracts made with it or in vindication of its property rights.
          [T]...

          Since, in common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign,
          statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it. 5 But
          there is no hard [312 U.S. 600, 605] and fast rule of exclusion. The
          purpose, the subject matter, the context, the legislative history, and the
          executive interpretation of the statute are aids to construction which may
          indicate an intent, by the use of the term, to bring state or nation within
          the scope of the law. 6

          The Government admits that often the word 'person' is used in such a sense
          as not to include the sovereign but urges that where, as in the present
          instance, its wider application is consistent with, and tends to effectuate,
          the public policy evidenced by the statute, the term should be held to
          embrace the Government. [A]..."

          UNITED STATES v. COOPER CORPORATION, 312 U.S. 600 (1941)
          http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/312/600.html



          --
          No virus found in this outgoing message.
          Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
          Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.0 - Release Date: 3/31/2005
        • jm367@bellsouth.net
          Are the records maintained by Government on persons kept in ALL CAPS ? I have a document in all caps from the Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce,
          Message 4 of 19 , Apr 1, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Are the records maintained by Government on persons kept in ALL CAPS ?
            I have a document in all caps from the Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce, giving notice of registration of child. All caps NAME.  Mother of maiden name.  Father known by initial only which means unknown by the common-law rules of evidence.
             
            Draw your own concluions.  Do your own FOIA request.  Find out what their records say you are.
            Read Bracton to find out what is freeman in common-law.
            ----- Original Message -----
             
            Is their any truth to this concern that if a person is named in ALL CAPS, that person is now a corporation, and the real human being is some kind of trustee of the ALL CAPS ENTITY NAMED?
          • jm367@bellsouth.net
            I recently posted authority which directly disputes that No corporation can exist unless there are forms filed and they must be a mater of public record.
            Message 5 of 19 , Apr 2, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              I recently posted authority which directly disputes that No corporation can exist unless there are forms filed and they must be a mater of public record. 
              Maitland in his authoritative treatise on equity says flatly that you can become a trustee wuthout knowingly entering into a trustee agreement.
               
              But, the simple and undeniable facts are
              1. people's births are recorded and registered in their name and behalf;  the registration of every child is an article in treaties.
              2. the federal Government distributes funds to States for the benefit of mother and child with regulatory strings attached;  these funds are to reduce infant mortality, etc. and for education; expenditures for the benefit of registered child both before and after birth; 
              3. the USC requires that States prosecute Parens Patriae actions unless they enact law to the contrary;  none have tht I know of;
               
              4. principles of maritime law provide for equitable liens.
              5. the public debt may not be questioned.  14th amendment
              6. U.S. citizenship is said to be a privilege;  a privilege is, as it were, a private law (maxim)
               
               Everything you need to see in order to understand what seems hidden or unknown is in Government records.
               
            • jm367@bellsouth.net
              Social Security cannot be a retirement prgram because there are no legal rights in it. That s why they are pushing private accounts. To indenture them forever
              Message 6 of 19 , Apr 2, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Social Security cannot be a retirement prgram because there are no legal rights in it.
                That's why they are pushing private accounts.  To indenture them forever under real contract.
              • MFurtado
                I believe Mr. Wilde may have meant, It s all crap according to the criminal courts. If he didn t, then Carrol may have just proved him wrong. But is he
                Message 7 of 19 , Apr 2, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  I believe Mr. Wilde may have meant, "It's all crap according to the criminal courts."
                  If he didn't, then Carrol may have just proved him wrong. 
                   
                  But is he convinvced?
                  Does it matter if he is or is not?
                   
                  Probably doesn't matter.  We often adopt the bull S__t that the government keeps parroting totally forgettigng who it is that we are deaing with.
                   
                  For some reason we keep forgetting that when the government says yes, it means no, especially if no tends to make them look bad or invalidates their twist of reality, and yes means they are to continue business as usual.
                   
                  Kind of like, "The IRS isn't a government agency..."  People react with "That's a lot of bunk, read..." this case and that decision.  But decisions by whom?  By Criminal Courts and Black Robed, self-believing prophets (spelled "profits")?
                   
                  I've read Dan Meadors evidence, and that's enough truth for me.  I can string obvious circumstantial evidence together and make my own conclusions of what is truth (like how does a agency allegedly of the Dept. of Treasury get paid by the Dept. of Agriculture?  Sounds shady to me!)  Let's face it!  Conspiracies exist in abundance in these united State of America!
                   
                  I'm a much more reliable means of truth thanis government.  The government line is obviously crap, and judges who go on and on about "This court has consistently held..." this and that, discounting the evidence that obviously exists, well, what did you expect?
                   
                  Did you expect the judge to say, "Well after reading The Law That Never Was, I'm convinced that the income tax is a bogus amendment that wasn't ratified, and Irwin Schiff is a master mind, because there IS NO LAW making any American, or anyone else for that matter, liable for, and required to pay the tax!  I find the defendant US government guilty of nearly 100 years of fraud.  I sentence them all to death for treason of the worst kind... enslaving the American People under Color of Law!  This case is now conlcuded, and every member of Congress will be taken into immediate custody... "
                   
                  NOT!
                   
                  Mel
                   
                  Mel
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: Carrol
                  Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 10:49 AM
                  Subject: Re: Fw: [tips_and_tricks] Legal Fictions

                  Wow - that's just like saying "Because I said so".

                  If it is all a crock, why is there this provision in the
                  IRM regarding the 1040 form:

                  "IRM 9.4.4.2.1.3 (01-30-2001)
                  The Individual Master File
                  2.. 
                • jm367@bellsouth.net
                  It s basic common-law law that there can be no trust without a corpus. Promises do not a corpus make. Congress can define an ant as an elephant. Does it make
                  Message 8 of 19 , Apr 2, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    It's basic common-law law that there can be no trust without a corpus.
                    Promises do not a corpus make.
                    Congress can define an ant as an elephant.  Does it make it so ?
                    In federal courts, I guess it does.
                  • Nick
                    ... corpus. ... Title 42 section 401 tells exactly what the corpus is, any other questions? The Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund shall
                    Message 9 of 19 , Apr 2, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, <jm367@b...> wrote:
                      > It's basic common-law law that there can be no trust without a
                      corpus.
                      > Promises do not a corpus make.
                      > Congress can define an ant as an elephant. Does it make it so ?
                      > In federal courts, I guess it does.

                      Title 42 section 401 tells exactly what the corpus is, any other
                      questions?

                      The Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund shall consist
                      of the securities held by the Secretary of the Treasury for the Old-
                      Age Reserve Account and the amount standing to the credit of the Old-
                      Age Reserve Account on the books of the Treasury on January 1, 1940,
                      which securities and amount the Secretary of the Treasury is
                      authorized and directed to transfer to the Federal Old-Age and
                      Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, and, in addition, such gifts and
                      bequests as may be made as provided in subsection (i)(1) of this
                      section, and such amounts as may be appropriated to, or deposited in,
                      the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund as hereinafter
                      provided. There is hereby appropriated to the Federal Old-Age and
                      Survivors Insurance Trust Fund for the fiscal year ending June 30,
                      1941, and for each fiscal year thereafter, out of any moneys in the
                      Treasury not otherwise appropriated, amounts equivalent to 100 per
                      centum of—
                      (1) the taxes (including interest, penalties, and additions to the
                      taxes) received under subchapter A of chapter 9 of the Internal
                      Revenue Code of 1939 (and covered into the Treasury) which are
                      deposited into the Treasury by collectors of internal revenue before
                      January 1, 1951; and
                      (2) the taxes certified each month by the Commissioner of Internal
                      Revenue as taxes received under subchapter A of chapter 9 of such
                      Code which are deposited into the Treasury by collectors of internal
                      revenue after December 31, 1950, and before January 1, 1953, with
                      respect to assessments of such taxes made before January 1, 1951; and
                      (3) the taxes imposed by subchapter A of chapter 9 of such Code with
                      respect to wages (as defined in section 1426 of such Code), and by
                      chapter 21 (other than sections 3101(b) and 3111(b)) of the Internal
                      Revenue Code of 1954 with respect to wages (as defined in section
                      3121 of such Code) reported to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue
                      pursuant to section 1420(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939
                      after December 31, 1950, or to the Secretary of the Treasury or his
                      delegates pursuant to subtitle F of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954
                      after December 31, 1954, as determined by the Secretary of the
                      Treasury by applying the applicable rates of tax under such
                      subchapter or chapter 21 (other than sections 3101 (b) and 3111 (b))
                      to such wages, which wages shall be certified by the Commissioner of
                      Social Security on the basis of the records of wages established and
                      maintained by such Commissioner in accordance with such reports, less
                      the amounts specified in clause (1) of subsection (b) of this
                      section; and
                      (4) the taxes imposed by subchapter E of chapter 1 of the Internal
                      Revenue Code of 1939, with respect to self-employment income (as
                      defined in section 481 of such Code), and by chapter 2 (other than
                      section 1401(b)) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 with respect to
                      self-employment income (as defined in section 1402 of such Code)
                      reported to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on tax returns under
                      such subchapter or to the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate
                      on tax returns under subtitle F of such Code, as determined by the
                      Secretary of the Treasury by applying the applicable rate of tax
                      under such subchapter or chapter (other than section 1401 (b)) to
                      such self-employment income, which self-employment income shall be
                      certified by the Commissioner of Social Security on the basis of the
                      records of self-employment income established and maintained by the
                      Commissioner of Social Security in accordance with such returns, less
                      the amounts specified in clause (2) of subsection (b) of this
                      section.
                      The amounts appropriated by clauses (3) and (4) of this subsection
                      shall be transferred from time to time from the general fund in the
                      Treasury to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund,
                      and the amounts appropriated by clauses (1) and (2) of subsection (b)
                      of this section shall be transferred from time to time from the
                      general fund in the Treasury to the Federal Disability Insurance
                      Trust Fund, such amounts to be determined on the basis of estimates
                      by the Secretary of the Treasury of the taxes, specified in clauses
                      (3) and (4) of this subsection, paid to or deposited into the
                      Treasury; and proper adjustments shall be made in amounts
                      subsequently transferred to the extent prior estimates were in excess
                      of or were less than the taxes specified in such clauses (3) and (4)
                      of this subsection. All amounts transferred to either Trust Fund
                      under the preceding sentence shall be invested by the Managing
                      Trustee in the same manner and to the same extent as the other assets
                      of such Trust Fund. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, in any
                      case in which the Secretary of the Treasury determines that the
                      assets of either such Trust Fund would otherwise be inadequate to
                      meet such Fund's obligations for any month, the Secretary of the
                      Treasury shall transfer to such Trust Fund on the first day of such
                      month the amount which would have been transferred to such Fund under
                      this section as in effect on October 1, 1990; and such Trust Fund
                      shall pay interest to the general fund on the amount so transferred
                      on the first day of any month at a rate (calculated on a daily basis,
                      and applied against the difference between the amount so transferred
                      on such first day and the amount which would have been transferred to
                      the Trust Fund up to that day under the procedures in effect on
                      January 1, 1983) equal to the rate earned by the investments of such
                      Fund in the same month under subsection (d) of this section.
                    • jm367@bellsouth.net
                      Would the procuring of an entity with a name that sounds like the name of a man be a thing whereby any part of the rights and liberties confirmed by sovereign
                      Message 10 of 19 , Apr 4, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Would the procuring of an entity with a name that sounds like the name of a man be a thing whereby any part of the rights and liberties confirmed by sovereign power or the concessions confirmed by sovereign power might be revoked or diminished ?
                         
                        To the extent such an entity might be used for such purpose, the sovereign has conceded it is to be null and void and of no force and effect and any judgment to the contrary is to be undone and holden for naught.  And the right to that concession exists antecedent to any constitution.
                         
                        But any right can be waived.
                         
                      • gary
                        Dave, Maybe my memory is failing me (it has been a few years since I dug into this) but as I remember it, an IMF is generated each year that a return is filed.
                        Message 11 of 19 , Apr 4, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Dave,
                           
                          Maybe my memory is failing me (it has been a few years since I dug into this) but as I remember it, an IMF is generated each year that a return is filed.  If no return is filed and there are W2s or 1099s, the IRS generates a substitute for return (SFR) which generates an IMF for that year.  If this is true, would I be correct in assuming that the reason they don't bother you is that they look at the last IMF and if that says you need not file then they don't ask you for a return and don't generate a SFR for the last tax year?
                           
                          Gary
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 2:01 AM
                          Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Legal Fictions

                          Nick --

                          You said:
                          "Dave, it is not a matter of what or who the Government says you are, it is the documentation that people send in about you. What is sent in about you are W-2s and 1099s. These are the specific items that say you work for a FEDERAL WAGE. These presumptions have to be rebutted and this is where to cut everything off at the knees."

                          It is very much an issue of what the govt says I am.  Whatever these forms state and whatever these people claim (knowingly or unknowingly) is nothing more than hearsay unless and until I confirm them as fact by filing a Form 1040 and declaring them to be fact. 

                          Various persons (corporate and otherwise) send the IRS W-2s or 1099s concerning me every year.  But the IRS never even bothers me about them, much less attempts to collect taxes from me.  What others say about me or my money has no basis in fact if my Individual Master File has me listed as a non-taxpayer not required to file returns.

                          Yours in financial freedom,

                          Dave Miner
                          www.IRx-Solutions.com


                           

                        • Frog Farmer
                          ... Yes. There are quite a few people AND entities spelled and pronounced John Smith . Look in any directory of names. And we all know (or should know)
                          Message 12 of 19 , Apr 5, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Apr 4, 2005, at 11:42 AM, <jm367@...> wrote:

                            > Would the procuring of an entity with a name that sounds like the name
                            > of a man be a thing whereby any part of the rights and liberties
                            > confirmed by sovereign power or the concessions confirmed by sovereign
                            > power might be revoked or diminished ?

                            Yes. There are quite a few people AND entities spelled and pronounced
                            "John Smith". Look in any directory of names. And we all know (or
                            should know) that when John Smith gets sued or prosecuted, everyone who
                            uses the name does not appear in court. Some John Smiths are affected
                            and some are not. Does it really need to be explained why this is so?
                            Could it be that a sovereign John Smith at any particular moment
                            chooses to surrender his sovereignty, and change his lawful status to
                            that of subject?
                             
                            > To the extent such an entity might be used for such purpose, the
                            > sovereign has conceded it is to be null and void and of no force and
                            > effect and any judgment to the contrary is to be undone and holden for
                            > naught.  And the right to that concession exists antecedent to any
                            > constitution.

                            Absolutely. And some John Smiths know that and use that knowledge in
                            the moment of choice and decision, while many do not, and end up later
                            wishing that they had, and spending inordinate amounts of time and
                            resources trying to recover from their waivers.

                            > But any right can be waived.

                            I believe that is true, but some say not. Ask Terry Schiavo.

                            However, one can make the decision to try to personally avoid making
                            rights waivers, or to at least make them consciously instead of in a
                            knee-jerk reaction driven by fear and adrenaline, or the need to "fit
                            in".

                            I think when you find a case where a juristic entity and a man are
                            taken as one and the same entity, the record will probably show the
                            train of events whereby this link was first made, and an event can be
                            identified as a voluntary choice by one making a waiver of rights in a
                            situation where they would still defend their sanity. And that is the
                            problem. And there usually is not just that initial event, but many
                            subsequent ratifications of it, with more compounding surrenders, one
                            upon the next. Then a point is reached where the discomfort level
                            causes the waiver-maker to chafe under all his statements and promises.
                            Then he says to himself, "hey, how come some people are more free than
                            others, that's not fair." Meanwhile at home, his new widescreen
                            digital TV awaits his arrival, with no interest due until January and
                            no payments until 2006! And then his tax refund should cover the whole
                            thing!
                          • Dave Miner
                            Gary -- Good question, but its logic will lead you to what I have been saying. I will explain, but first I will correct a fundamental misunderstanding you
                            Message 13 of 19 , Apr 5, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Gary --
                               
                              Good question, but its logic will lead you to what I have been saying.  I will explain, but first I will correct a fundamental misunderstanding you have concerning the IMF.
                               
                              An IMF is created when the first return is filed.  For most of us, this occurred when we were teenagers.  Since only businesses are required to file a return, the IRS creates the IMF and enters the individual as a business.  The IMF is a permanent file (for most people) and it consists of three sections.  The first section is the entity section, which establishes who and what you are, including what returns you are required to file.  The entity section remains pretty much the same every year, with only a few changes.  The second section is the module portion.  This is the section where the data from the return is entered.  There is a module section for each and every year.  If you do not file a return, the IRS will file one for you, based on the authority of the IRS to file returns for certain types of businesses, which you correctly noted is a Substitute for Return.  The third section is called the transaction section, and it includes transaction codes and status codes.  This section records almost every action the IRS takes against you, plus some other data.
                               
                              If you obtain your IMF-Complete, you will receive a stack of pages with one entity section and a whole bunch of module and transaction portions organized by year.  If you obtain your IMF-Specific, you will receive 2-6 pages (typical according to my experience with hundreds of them) for each year, with all three sections in each printout.
                               
                              The IMF is generated every year regardless of whether or not you file a return, on or about the first week in January.  The IRS creates the entity portion based on the previous year's IMF.  The module and transaction portions will remain blank until you file a return.  If you request your IMF-Specific in February of any given year, you will receive an IMF with the entity portion completed and the module and transaction portions will be blank.  If you do not file, your IMF will remain this way for usually two years.  Then the IRS will process a Transaction Code 424, which starts the process of completing the SFR with lots of other transactions that add taxes and penalties and interest.  Stat Codes recording the collection letters the IRS sends to you will be added over the next few months to a couple of years.  Sooner or later, the IRS will make an attempt to lien or levy your assets if the IRS deems you to be profitable (there are two fields in the IMF that render a "score" that tells the IRS if you would be a profitable account to pursue).  If the IRS deems you to be not profitable (assets hidden, or difficult to snatch), then sooner or later the IRS stops pursuing you for that year.  After 2 or 3 years of non-filing, the IRS will add everything together and go after you regardless of your assets, simply because the total amount due (in the eyes of the IRS) is large enough to warrant serious collection efforts.
                               
                              The IMF is created 2-3 years before the SFR is created, and maybe more.
                               
                              But you are correct in one thing.  If the IRS sees that you are not required to file returns, then it ignores you for 3 years.  After 3 years, the IMF is removed to what the IRS calls "retention" (which renders your account inactive) and it simply disappears.  There will then be no more IMFs created for you until you file another return, creating the whole process all over again.
                               
                              But the IRS would see in your IMF the fact that you are not required to file ONLY afar you have forced it to enter that item.  If you do not force the IRS to change your IMF to reflect that you are an individual not required to file, then your IMF will ALWAYS reflect several data entries that indicate you ARE required to file.  If you filed once, the IRS enters the fact that you ARE required to file based on the presumption that no one would be stupid enough to file unless they are REQUIRED to file. 
                               
                              So if you ever filed a return, your IMF will show that you are required to file.  And that won't change until you force the IRS to change it.
                               
                              Yours in financial freedom,
                               
                              Dave Miner
                               
                               


                              From: gary [mailto:gary2666@...]
                              Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 9:53 PM
                              To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Legal Fictions

                              Dave,
                               
                              Maybe my memory is failing me (it has been a few years since I dug into this) but as I remember it, an IMF is generated each year that a return is filed.  If no return is filed and there are W2s or 1099s, the IRS generates a substitute for return (SFR) which generates an IMF for that year.  If this is true, would I be correct in assuming that the reason they don't bother you is that they look at the last IMF and if that says you need not file then they don't ask you for a return and don't generate a SFR for the last tax year?
                               
                              Gary
                            • gary
                              Dave, Thanks for the explanation, I have some comments below. Gary ... From: Dave Miner To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005
                              Message 14 of 19 , Apr 6, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Dave,
                                 
                                Thanks for the explanation, I have some comments below.
                                 
                                Gary
                                ----- Original Message -----
                                Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 1:13 AM
                                Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Legal Fictions

                                Gary --
                                 
                                Good question, but its logic will lead you to what I have been saying.  I will explain, but first I will correct a fundamental misunderstanding you have concerning the IMF.
                                 
                                 
                                The IMF is generated every year regardless of whether or not you file a return, on or about the first week in January.  The IRS creates the entity portion based on the previous year's IMF.  The module and transaction portions will remain blank until you file a return.  If you request your IMF-Specific in February of any given year, you will receive an IMF with the entity portion completed and the module and transaction portions will be blank.  If you do not file, your IMF will remain this way for usually two years.  Then the IRS will process a Transaction Code 424, which starts the process of completing the SFR with lots of other transactions that add taxes and penalties and interest.
                                 
                                *** This is not what happened in my case.  The last year I filed was 91 (tax year 90) and there was a W2 during 91 but I did not file in 92.  About the end of 92, after some letters requesting that I file a return they went ahead and did the SFR and an IMF was created for that year.  They did an exaimination and using the Bereau of Labor Statistics tables, they imputed income to me of 38k (W2 was for about 8.5K).  Several years later, I requested copies of my IMF specific for 90 through 95 and was told that no IMFs existed after 91.
                                 
                                  Stat Codes recording the collection letters the IRS sends to you will be added over the next few months to a couple of years.  Sooner or later, the IRS will make an attempt to lien or levy your assets if the IRS deems you to be profitable (there are two fields in the IMF that render a "score" that tells the IRS if you would be a profitable account to pursue).  If the IRS deems you to be not profitable (assets hidden, or difficult to snatch), then sooner or later the IRS stops pursuing you for that year.  After 2 or 3 years of non-filing, the IRS will add everything together and go after you regardless of your assets, simply because the total amount due (in the eyes of the IRS) is large enough to warrant serious collection efforts.
                                 
                                *** They have filed their notice of tax lien (I don't own any property and don't have a bank account and don't work for a wage) and the only thing I get from them about once a year is a bill showing what they say I owe now. 
                                 
                                The IMF is created 2-3 years before the SFR is created, and maybe more.
                                 
                                *** It appeared to me that they were created about the same time in my case.
                                 
                                 
                              • Dave Miner
                                Gary -- I don t mean to get picky on you, but you are wrong about the sequence of events. The IRS cannot contact you about wanting a return from you unless an
                                Message 15 of 19 , Apr 6, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Gary --
                                   
                                  I don't mean to get picky on you, but you are wrong about the sequence of events.  The IRS cannot contact you about wanting a return from you unless an IMF already exists for that year and there is no return logged in it.  The agent that contacted you had no way of knowing there was no return on file without looking in the IMF.  The three files that would have reflected the lack of a return all take their data from the IMF.  And the IRS cannot send you any letters at all without an IMF because the ACS (Automated Collection System) keys off the IMF -- no IMF, no letters demanding returns or taxes.  Each and every contact with you is logged in the IMF.  And the creation of an SFR requires the IMF to be in existence, because there several steps that must be logged in the IMF long before there can be a Substitute for Return created.  The IRS cannot perform an examination unless a Request for Examination is entered in the IMF as a Transaction Code of 420 or 424.  As a result of the TC 420 or TC 424, the computer automatically spits out several other actions resulting in the examination.  All this is automated and tracked by the IMF.
                                   
                                  I cannot speak for why the IRS told you there were no IMF after 1991.  If there is no action on an IMF for two years, it is sometimes moved to retention and cannot be retrieved by computer.  It is on microfiche or microfilm, perhaps, but not always.  This is odd -- normally the IRS would state that there were no IMFs BEFORE a particular year and not AFTER a particular year.  If the lien you mentioned is for year 1990, it is possible that the IRS has changed you IMF and it has been dropped from the system.  IF so, you will not receive anything concerning other later tax years.  But if you are receiving anything concerning years since 1990, then you still have an IMF for the years involved in the contact.
                                   
                                  I have requested at least a dozen IMFs for 2004.  All were sent to the client by the IRS and not one had any module info or transaction info because none of the clients had sent in any returns and no collection activities had been initiated for 2004 yet.  All the IMFs were created with the entity portion completed, which is just copied from the prior year.
                                   
                                  Yours in financial freedom,
                                   
                                  Dave Miner
                                   
                                   


                                  From: gary [mailto:gary2666@...]
                                  Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 1:20 PM
                                  To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                                  Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Legal Fictions

                                  Dave,
                                   
                                  Thanks for the explanation, I have some comments below.
                                   
                                  Gary
                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 1:13 AM
                                  Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Legal Fictions

                                  Gary --
                                   
                                  Good question, but its logic will lead you to what I have been saying.  I will explain, but first I will correct a fundamental misunderstanding you have concerning the IMF.
                                   
                                   
                                  The IMF is generated every year regardless of whether or not you file a return, on or about the first week in January.  The IRS creates the entity portion based on the previous year's IMF.  The module and transaction portions will remain blank until you file a return.  If you request your IMF-Specific in February of any given year, you will receive an IMF with the entity portion completed and the module and transaction portions will be blank.  If you do not file, your IMF will remain this way for usually two years.  Then the IRS will process a Transaction Code 424, which starts the process of completing the SFR with lots of other transactions that add taxes and penalties and interest.
                                   
                                  *** This is not what happened in my case.  The last year I filed was 91 (tax year 90) and there was a W2 during 91 but I did not file in 92.  About the end of 92, after some letters requesting that I file a return they went ahead and did the SFR and an IMF was created for that year.  They did an exaimination and using the Bereau of Labor Statistics tables, they imputed income to me of 38k (W2 was for about 8.5K).  Several years later, I requested copies of my IMF specific for 90 through 95 and was told that no IMFs existed after 91.
                                   
                                    Stat Codes recording the collection letters the IRS sends to you will be added over the next few months to a couple of years.  Sooner or later, the IRS will make an attempt to lien or levy your assets if the IRS deems you to be profitable (there are two fields in the IMF that render a "score" that tells the IRS if you would be a profitable account to pursue).  If the IRS deems you to be not profitable (assets hidden, or difficult to snatch), then sooner or later the IRS stops pursuing you for that year.  After 2 or 3 years of non-filing, the IRS will add everything together and go after you regardless of your assets, simply because the total amount due (in the eyes of the IRS) is large enough to warrant serious collection efforts.
                                   
                                  *** They have filed their notice of tax lien (I don't own any property and don't have a bank account and don't work for a wage) and the only thing I get from them about once a year is a bill showing what they say I owe now. 
                                   
                                  The IMF is created 2-3 years before the SFR is created, and maybe more.
                                   
                                  *** It appeared to me that they were created about the same time in my case.
                                   
                                   
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.