This is a phony document and cannot be relied on for anything, it's made the rounds many times and there was just another thread debunking it here. Don't fall prey to red herrings designed to distract people from the fraud caused by "voluntary self-assessment". Grok's analysis in the link is correct but incomplete, so I gave the necessary context. If you want your money back, correct your self-assessment. If you didn't self-assess, correct the assessment that your abdication permitted them to make. This requires knowing the law and understanding its application without getting trapped by any of the counterfeit protest movements that the IRS has already debunked. It's not easy but answers are available to the interested.
I dunno, this guy hasn’t paid taxes in years and shows everyone else what forms to send IRS depending on what letter you get from them. He’s got a video blog too.
http://www.tax-freedom.com/
Good Lord that website is a fossil. Kek. Right on, just be careful how you do it. The guy from my link got slapped with 18 months prison time and had to serve it. Make sure your affairs are in order just in case
did he go to jail for his taxes or because he was sharing his methods with everyone else? it matters because the irs would rather let a few slip through the cracks but if you try to widen that crack so others can fall through then youre making yourself a target.
The first link to Mr. Roberts case is just one guy who was trying to get out of paying taxes by challenging the 16th amendment. The second case I did not read through but that's the the guy who was teaching others. You'd have to read it to see what happened
i dont need to read it, challenging the 16th amendment says all i need to know.
you cant challenge the 16, courts deemed it constitutional. what you have to argue is whether or not you even have a tax liability to begin with.
if they tell you its wrong and file again, remind them under 26 usc 6201 they are authorized to make corrections based on personal knowledge. if you change your return, youre admitting to making a mistake. if they change your return, theyre committing fraud.
$6 for a 35-page booklet is usually called "paytriotism". It won't do to charge "subversion of both law and Constitution", "lack of statutory subjectivity", and "the federal government (I.R.S. & D.O.J.) has ignored, misapplied, and misused the provisions of the statutes". It wrongly holds that the income tax is a direct tax, but the Supremes decide what is a direct tax under objective decisions and they said, no, the income tax is in the nature of an excise.
The fact that out of hundreds of millions of filers, a few have claimed income tax is direct tax and gotten refunds, is insufficient. The only recourse is knowing the law (and applicable case law) and following it to the letter, not claiming that the law and Scotus are wrong. The IRS intends, usually successfully, to prosecute those who make frivolous arguments, which include this direct tax argument, and they usually come back after a few years with enforcement. Therefore one must take refuge in the law rather than fight it, and must learn why the principles of the law and Constitution are still upheld even as mismanagement and deception allow much tax money to be paid voluntarily by those who do not take the step of learning the law on their rights to avoid excise taxes.
Whatever you say about his methods and argument, the fact he’s stayed out of jail for the past 15 or so years shows he knows what he’s talking about and his response letters work.
I’ve read reviews from people who’ve used the response forms who have gotten the IRS off their backs as well.
Staying out of jail 15 years is not an unlocked achievement in this field, I've stayed out of jail 20 years now after joining the game. Neither liberty nor good reviews prove that response letters work, only remedy proves that. The IRS doesn't enforce against everyone whom it considers lawless. If a reviewer shows that the IRS has not only gone silent on its claims but also acknowledged the reviewer's claims then it might have a bit of credibility, but even then cases are usually individual and require much filtering due to the high mania level that produces so many counterfeits. Be safe and be moral: pay the legally required taxes on your income, don't argue against the law or against Scotus. (There's an exception, namely if you sincerely believe the Constitution and Scotus are wrong, but that's a very high bar and nobody I've seen has reached it except maybe the Confederacy.)
The IRS is not a constitutional tax system and was not properly ratified. Therefore it is an illegal entity operating illegally in the US. It’s going away.
It'd be nice if it's going away, but the IRS is not related to the ratification of the 16th since the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was first appointed to collect the income tax signed by Lincoln in 1862. The Supremes bent over backwards to satisfy the Constitution and still allow the IRS to exist, and without understanding their reasoning you don't have the means to get your sovereign will done because sovereigns are aware of their own strength and that of others. Similarly the clerical errors in all 38 ratifications of the 16th were insufficient to be judged a material cause of rejection of that ratification and it's not likely that decision will be reversed.
You have every right to reject the IRS and its excises as to conscience, but good conscience will also compel you to accept the consequences of your choice, which currently include jail time for years. It's better to learn the law and how the scheme actually operates, and manage your affairs accordingly.
I was literally about to post that link, though I'm far too chicken to do it, Pete H has been doing this and teaching it for decades. He's the only one I've personally seen do this for that amount of time and still remain out of jail. I'm sure there are others, but I've seen many teach this TYPE of thing end up in prison for tax evasion.
It's not evasion, it is the law and that is what losthorizons teaches. Once you understand where you stand as a taxpayer and what the law is, it all becomes very clear. Labor is not a taxable event in the 50 states. It is if you work for a federal agency or live in DC or the 7 territories owned by the corporation.
I'm aware of what they teach. That said, I've seen many other experts teaching many things with the appearance of great authority... and seen many end up in prison. I'm really happy it is going well for you. I think Pete may be one of the few who have the truth, who do it right.
There are many crackpots teaching false things quite convincingly, like David Lester Straight.
Fact: Hendrickson did go to jail for some time on tax-related charges, and he would certainly say to be prepared for the worst as you pursue the truth of the law.
Indeed, I'm aware he did to some time. I don't think it was very significant. Months, if I recall? I don't really recall. That said, it wasn't YEARS. He did get out. Many people get 10+ years for doing this wrong, that I've seen. He's one of the few who appear to be in the know, however it has not been always smooth and easy for him. He has gone through quite a bit.
This too is not a permanent solution and can come back to bite people, because it is an insufficient argument. You may well be arguing that you are not a 26 USC 7701(b) resident alien because of the definitions of "United States" and "State" in that section. However, even if you were an NRA you would still be taxed on your income, so you need to determine whether your income is accurately reported by yourself and all information return preparers. Many (not all) are told they have accrued significant penalties such as $5,000 for frivolous filing, so you need to be prepared for that risk, even years later. It's frivolous to say merely "I'm an NRA therefore I can't have income", because it's still possible to have income. There's still time to learn the rest of the law and to ensure your record is complete and correct.
The right suggestion is the fact that "income" is not defined by statute or code. In fact Scotus has observed that to define income strictly would likely be "precarious" to the current system.
Obviously foreign money that changes hands between foreigners with no American nexus whatsoever cannot be "income" because Congress has no power to tax it. Therefore it's safe to say that Congress can only tax money transfers where someone alleges federal nexus. The trick is to determine how that allegation is made. It's reasonable to start by looking at the information returns that fly so wildly this season, because they are relied on by both the IRS and the self-assessors to be accurate statements of income. If you submit an information return to the IRS it is presumed you agree it is correct. Since virtually all whom the IRS has collected from have had information returns submitted on their behalf, it's reasonable that the information return alleges federal nexus. Do you see where this is going?
Agreed, but its also your responsibility to refute any w-2 or 1099 forms when you file. But now youre arguing income vs compensation, it doesnt end there.
Ultimately you have to rescind your consent to have a SS number assigned to you. From my understanding they wont actually update any records but you can use that letter to the SSA as evidence and hold them liable for the error resulting from their inaction.
the downside: you give up all access to federal programs. social security, medicaid, unemployment, all of it.
It's not necessary to rescind the SS number, but if you can do so (or become Amish and get a legacy exception) all the better. The connection to the SS number, like the NRA argument, is not the nexus involved.
Yes, if a W-2 or 1099 series information return is incorrect, it should be corrected by accurate testimony. I'm not arguing income vs. compensation; according to 26 USC 61, income includes compensation for services. Therefore it's essential to read the law to determine if information returns are correct, and it's one's responsibility to ensure that everything one reports to the IRS is correct according to the law. Any tax preparer can tell you the procedures for correcting an information return that a payor refuses to correct, although they may not agree with the reasoning that leads one to ask the question; the standard procedures are the remedy prescribed by law for correcting such reporting errors and should be followed. Since the IRS is designed to take advantage of any error and to assume the worst as to amounts due, without any incentive to help the filer produce correct testimony or demonstrate the situation to be less than the worst, I tell everyone to learn the law and apply it scrupulously.
Please see what I wrote about NRAs. Also, it would help you if you answered my question instead of focusing on zip codes. The several states are "foreign" in one sense and "domestic" in another, and PR, VI, AS and other territories are "domestic" in many senses too, so unless legal context is specified the claim is void for vagueness. Focus on this: what is an example of an information return that is typically received this time of year alleging that income was paid in certain categories in the prior year? There are many good answers. Whichever one(s) you pick, it's easy to find the law that specifies what should be reported on that form, trace the definitions inherent in that law, and determine whether the reporting is correct. But just because it's easy doesn't mean that people want to do it when they can rely on what other people have told them instead of researching for themselves. You're a researcher of some experience, so I don't know why you wouldn't answer my simple question or continue to propose other avenues without providing sources. I'm attracted to this forum because it's high-effort.
Brushaber stated in his case that he was a New York citizen. He was born in New York. The US Treasury, in TD2313, referred to him as a nonresident alien.
TD 2313, despite that unique interpretation that floats over its head, gives no benefit to the claim that NRA status helps anyone. It appears on p. 53-55 of Treasury Decisions volume 18 (1916) and says, "The normal tax shall be withheld at the source from income accrued to nonresident aliens ... as in the case of citizens and resident aliens." It never says Brushaber was an NRA, it says that pursuant to the (very sweeping) Brushaber decision it should be noted, if anyone asks, that NRAs pay taxes the same as residents and citizens.
Again, the only way to solve the problem is to read the original texts. If you have income, pay the tax, if you don't, don't. If an information return alleges that you have income when you didn't, the ordinary means of correcting that allegation should be used, using the definitions for classes of income as found in the law. Nothing to do with NRA status, gold, bankers, reparations, corporations per se, or any of the other imaginative interpretations not based on law. It does have to do with federal nexus, but unless the federal nexus is specifically defined and all classes of nexus enumerated, sweeping statements about nexus are usually wrong. The nature of the multilayered scheme makes it so because each layer has different terms.
You are partly correct. Brushaber claimed that he was being taxed on dividends from Union Pacific Railroad in Utah. If UP had been a Utah corporation, Brushaber would not have been taxed. He was taxed because UP was chartered by Congress, therefore making it a source from within the United States (federal government/DC/Congress).
That is only a short-term solution, although it's certainly recommended in case the IRS disappears. However, if its successors persist you'll need to know the law and ensure that your nonfiling doesn't get you in trouble due to information returns reporting that you had income.
From my understanding it doesn't make you liable just because an employer reports your income. You become liable the moment you sign your own tax return swearing under penalty of perjury that all information is true and correct.
Well, you're close, but liability isn't the magic word you need. If you earned income, such as from an employer, and are law-abiding, you would lawfully pay the appropriate tax on that income because it's a Constitutional excise. That would seem to be called liability. If you don't have an employer and are not paid income, that would not generate a liability. Because income tax is in the nature of an excise, there must be a way to earn a living without having an employer that generates income for you. But the government considers itself under no responsibility or incentive to tell you how to do so as long as they believe they've formally left the option to you as possible.
There are at least four different definitions of employer in the tax code, in Chapters 21-24, pertaining to Social Security, Railroad Retirement, withholding, and Medicaid; those were enacted at different times for different reasons and so they have different definitions. Employer often includes private companies. You'll need to learn the code to be more specific. I can answer questions but it helps if you do a little research to join in. What else do you want to know?
Well I have done a little research on this topic over the past 8 years or so. Not extensive, but some. My reading led me to the conclusion that "employer" and "employee" refer to a relationship with the federal government, and so only those who work for the federal government, directly or indirectly, or in DC itself, have a true tax liability, because the statutory authority can only extend that far.
Now if you bring in the federal reserve, fiat currency, and the fact that every company uses bank accounts of that system it gets a lot more complicated.
I just don't file. If I never enter a contract how can I be liable? And no law can compel a person to perform an act against their will or enter into a contract unwillingly.
"employer" and "employee" refer to a relationship with the federal government
Yes, basically, but in different ways in each of Chapters 21-24 (make a mental note of the topics of those four chapters as I stated, for future reference). Thank you for noticing! Yet because of the differences, it's dangerous to generalize, and that's why, unless you see the whole unfolded, it's easy to make statements that contain enough indirect error to be ruled as frivolous by administrative judges. E.g., it's not only government workers and workers in DC. When people try to make such summary statements the trap is right there. Only relying upon the words of the law directly is sufficient.
The Fed, the fiat, the banks are also other aspects of other schemes, but do not affect the operation of the tax code.
If I never enter a contract how can I be liable? And no law can compel a person to perform an act against their will or enter into a contract unwillingly.
Great question. The answer is that if you are paid by another person, that's an oral contract, and if the other person conveys testimony to the IRS in the form of a tax return stating that the money paid was a category of income then that's the testimony they like to run with. The law provides you recourse if the payor's testimony was mistaken, namely to submit the corrected record (filing is not a liability-creating contract per se, it's a self-assessment and a testimony). The law also provides that after enough time, a couple years, if there is no self-assessment the IRS is empowered to address the testimony it received by assessing you on your behalf, because you abrogated that right by neither affirming nor correcting the testimony they received about you. If you continue inaction the law does eventually permit your property, or you, to be seized, regardless of the fact that your conscience was honored by the system (you were never compelled to act against your conscience, you were just jailed). That's the nature of the beast: it's designed to make everyone feel they are stuck paying just like everyone else.
But we also observe that if you're rich enough you can have people research the law and find ways to pay less than everyone else. That's because it's still an excise, meaning it's avoidable. We are also told repeatedly by the Supremes that the right to labor for pay is a basic property right that cannot be infringed by an excise, which much be on avoidable activity. But they don't want to tell us the resolution of these things. Not filing is not the resolution because it's an abrogation of duty, an "easy out", and a very high risk to you as it goes on year after year. The resolution is to structure and report your affairs in compliance with all law such that the excise for which you are liable is an acceptable amount and within your rights and duties. Because of the Constitutional right to labor for pay, this path is always available to the American.
Since you've researched, do you know what an information return is? Maybe you've received one this year, a copy of one that was sent by the payor to the IRS, stating that you received money last year that fell in certain categories defined by certain form boxes (usually more than one available) according to the definitions in the code? If you know you haven't, great! If you don't know, or if you know you have, then I'd look into where those boxes get their definitions. If you want to know more, pick one of the most common information return forms and we'll look at it in more detail.
Now since this is the IRS, does it not seem fitting and fair that penalties and interest compounded over time should be demanded as well? I am just sayin'.
I don't usually downvote u/ashlanddog, but when I do it's because Ashland made an unhelpful statement (in this case one on which I already answered the OP in detail).
Anybody could copy the IRS typing format and put Egger's name on it in the 80s, getting the US Attorney's name (Roger Duncan) incorrect; nor would Egger have written such tripe, which could only have been thought to be effective by those who believe they found the silver bullet by rejecting the supreme law and the Supreme Court. The true byzantine labyrinth is quite deeper than the deceptive 16th, but it must remain legally accessible to the common man via the statutes and code. That's why I tell everyone to read the law and apply it scrupulously.
Hmm, didn't you just invoke Finder as to the stupidity of posting the same OP, and now you invoke as to the stupidity of downvoting against OP? Very sus fren. Add: No wait, maybe you mean the downvoter of you rather than Ashland, and maybe you mean your "it's prolly real" to be sarcasm? Fine, I'll downgrade my assessment of you, from you being wrong, to you just being unable to convey sarcasm accurately.
"I don't usually downvote u/ashlanddog, but when I do it's because Ashland made an unhelpful statement (in this case one on which I already answered the OP in detail)."
“There is no conversation more boring than the one where everybody agrees.”
Michel de Montaigne,
...I don't live and die on the "hills" I post here...
...many times I totally disagree with what I post, but I found the material interesting or the writing compellingly done so I throw it up against the wall and stand back and watch the fireworks...
...so don't worry SwampRanger, you will never be in the dog house......
...as to your sentiment, most " official documents" that float through here are flawed at best and fraudulent at the worst...
u/ConspiracyLinks is likely absolutely right. Russo ran for president as a Libertarian. However, his film only exposed about 80% of the scheme and also included up to 40% of useful but less direct information. He tried, and was permitted to roll with what he had, but one reason for the permission may have been he didn't have it all. The film was largely released to art houses rather than to mainstream theaters.
Here, Ashland, I'll share what I know. I saw a video of Russo describing his conversation with David Rockefeller in which he turned down that devil. The video is probably well-scrubbed by now so Godspeed if you find it. I promise you that Russo described his words to Rockefeller as follows: "I told him: as a Chr-- as a person of faith I couldn't do that." It's my belief that Russo was about to call himself a Christian but then remembered that he would be heard by his fellow Jews as well and wasn't ready to say the whole word and remembered his chosen euphemism in time. The fact is that Russo was well-heeled for many years as a rising Hollywood star and then he was invited to the inner circle and turned it down and had to suffer the consequences. And somewhere along the line he seems to have chosen the example of the man that turned down the illegal transfer of all the kingdoms of the world at once.
"And somewhere along the line he seems to have chosen the example of the man that turned down the illegal transfer of all the kingdoms of the world at once."
Matthew 4:8-11
KJV
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; and saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.
...but in Russo's case, the Devil did not leave him...
...this post has led into very deep waters...
...God bless you SwampRanger for your insight and patience...
The 16th Amendment, ratified in 1913, grants Congress the authority to levy income taxes without basing them on population. It was passed in response to the 1895 Supreme Court case Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., which made a nationwide income tax nearly impossible.
Federal reserve system was a fraud. The income tax system was a fraud. The capture of the earth was a fraud. The capture and monetization of humanity was a fraud!
Trump should pass an Eo that says where as contributions to the IRS are unconstitutional and confirm that All Americans may voluntarily dis enroll from payment by refraining from filing for the tax cycle starting now. Any who voluntarily file will be allowed to pay taxes. All payroll tax deductions are to cease immediately and the IRS is officially no longer able to investigate or enforce non payment or non filing.
Any enforcement will be a felony by those doing it. Lets see how many stop filing. .
That's somewhat close to what he should do! Not because contributions are unconstitutional but because their definition as constitutional is loaded with demonstrable deceptive intent.
Well, isn't this interesting...We could be in for a windfall of our tax money. It would be nice, but do I think we will get it back-simple answer is no. The more complex answer is this might happen if we pressure the government. They certainly don't/didn't care about all of us when these things were pulled on us, so maybe.
This doesn't seem legit; I have an old digital typewriter in a closet somewhere that could knock one of these out really fast. I love how there's even an explanation included as to why this has never ever been mentioned anywhere else- but I'm pretty sure there'd be a firsthand account of someone getting their money back.
This is a forgery and anyone giving credibility to this canard really needs to do their research. This has already been tested in court and ruling went against them. Do your research.
In the most simplest of terms, the tax code is confusing. Confusion is the nature of his game. Trump knows it, we know it and they know it.
Master clusterfuck which means it's a racket. K.I.S.S. my ass. At the end of the day, wouldn't a VAT tax generate more cash flow and revenue? CPAs and Intuit stock could take a ding. IRS is weird with old code (Fortran) and Masonic symbolism at headquarters. We can do better, said little country of Monaco.
No, because a VAT tax goes directly against the purchases of earning a living and thus by modern theory would break the 14th Amendment right to property. Neither excises nor tariffs go against earning a living, but the income tax (an excise) has been interpreted in such way that defacto it cramps earning a living for millions of people. As Ron Paul says, repeal the income tax and replace it with nothing. But replacing it with tariffs is an okay compromise due to optics.
We The People want our money back........with interest
With Penalty and Interest.
Just like they would charge us!
This is a phony document and cannot be relied on for anything, it's made the rounds many times and there was just another thread debunking it here. Don't fall prey to red herrings designed to distract people from the fraud caused by "voluntary self-assessment". Grok's analysis in the link is correct but incomplete, so I gave the necessary context. If you want your money back, correct your self-assessment. If you didn't self-assess, correct the assessment that your abdication permitted them to make. This requires knowing the law and understanding its application without getting trapped by any of the counterfeit protest movements that the IRS has already debunked. It's not easy but answers are available to the interested.
I'd settle for blood.
Hmmmmm.. where was this document found, in the back of a drawer in a file cabinet that was once inside of an IRS office?
Might want to read this. It looks like someone tried it already and got railed
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-7887/87908/20190213113417802_00000007.pdf
Petition denied https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-7887.html
https://centre.telemanage.ca/links.nsf/articles/E63F37D3412AC38085256969004BDAEE
Another case https://casetext.com/case/us-v-lloyd-12
A book https://archive.org/details/fedzone11
Much moar here https://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/buildfreedom.com/tl16f.htm
You mean as long as the courts are corrupt too , we are still screwed ?
Always been that way. Might makes right.
Famous quotes from ransacked castles ?
I dunno, this guy hasn’t paid taxes in years and shows everyone else what forms to send IRS depending on what letter you get from them. He’s got a video blog too. http://www.tax-freedom.com/
losthorizons.com process works. I know personally that it works.
Personally as in you follow it? Good for you, I'm a scaredy cat.
Personally as in I have the letters and the returns from the IRS proving it.
Good Lord that website is a fossil. Kek. Right on, just be careful how you do it. The guy from my link got slapped with 18 months prison time and had to serve it. Make sure your affairs are in order just in case
did he go to jail for his taxes or because he was sharing his methods with everyone else? it matters because the irs would rather let a few slip through the cracks but if you try to widen that crack so others can fall through then youre making yourself a target.
The first link to Mr. Roberts case is just one guy who was trying to get out of paying taxes by challenging the 16th amendment. The second case I did not read through but that's the the guy who was teaching others. You'd have to read it to see what happened
i dont need to read it, challenging the 16th amendment says all i need to know.
you cant challenge the 16, courts deemed it constitutional. what you have to argue is whether or not you even have a tax liability to begin with.
if they tell you its wrong and file again, remind them under 26 usc 6201 they are authorized to make corrections based on personal knowledge. if you change your return, youre admitting to making a mistake. if they change your return, theyre committing fraud.
$6 for a 35-page booklet is usually called "paytriotism". It won't do to charge "subversion of both law and Constitution", "lack of statutory subjectivity", and "the federal government (I.R.S. & D.O.J.) has ignored, misapplied, and misused the provisions of the statutes". It wrongly holds that the income tax is a direct tax, but the Supremes decide what is a direct tax under objective decisions and they said, no, the income tax is in the nature of an excise.
The fact that out of hundreds of millions of filers, a few have claimed income tax is direct tax and gotten refunds, is insufficient. The only recourse is knowing the law (and applicable case law) and following it to the letter, not claiming that the law and Scotus are wrong. The IRS intends, usually successfully, to prosecute those who make frivolous arguments, which include this direct tax argument, and they usually come back after a few years with enforcement. Therefore one must take refuge in the law rather than fight it, and must learn why the principles of the law and Constitution are still upheld even as mismanagement and deception allow much tax money to be paid voluntarily by those who do not take the step of learning the law on their rights to avoid excise taxes.
Whatever you say about his methods and argument, the fact he’s stayed out of jail for the past 15 or so years shows he knows what he’s talking about and his response letters work. I’ve read reviews from people who’ve used the response forms who have gotten the IRS off their backs as well.
Staying out of jail 15 years is not an unlocked achievement in this field, I've stayed out of jail 20 years now after joining the game. Neither liberty nor good reviews prove that response letters work, only remedy proves that. The IRS doesn't enforce against everyone whom it considers lawless. If a reviewer shows that the IRS has not only gone silent on its claims but also acknowledged the reviewer's claims then it might have a bit of credibility, but even then cases are usually individual and require much filtering due to the high mania level that produces so many counterfeits. Be safe and be moral: pay the legally required taxes on your income, don't argue against the law or against Scotus. (There's an exception, namely if you sincerely believe the Constitution and Scotus are wrong, but that's a very high bar and nobody I've seen has reached it except maybe the Confederacy.)
The IRS is not a constitutional tax system and was not properly ratified. Therefore it is an illegal entity operating illegally in the US. It’s going away.
It'd be nice if it's going away, but the IRS is not related to the ratification of the 16th since the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was first appointed to collect the income tax signed by Lincoln in 1862. The Supremes bent over backwards to satisfy the Constitution and still allow the IRS to exist, and without understanding their reasoning you don't have the means to get your sovereign will done because sovereigns are aware of their own strength and that of others. Similarly the clerical errors in all 38 ratifications of the 16th were insufficient to be judged a material cause of rejection of that ratification and it's not likely that decision will be reversed.
You have every right to reject the IRS and its excises as to conscience, but good conscience will also compel you to accept the consequences of your choice, which currently include jail time for years. It's better to learn the law and how the scheme actually operates, and manage your affairs accordingly.
I'm not filing this year, and I changed my federal withholding to EXEMPT! Who's with me?! Fuck the deep state in the ass, no lube!!!
You can get it all refunded anyways. losthorizons.com
I was literally about to post that link, though I'm far too chicken to do it, Pete H has been doing this and teaching it for decades. He's the only one I've personally seen do this for that amount of time and still remain out of jail. I'm sure there are others, but I've seen many teach this TYPE of thing end up in prison for tax evasion.
It's not evasion, it is the law and that is what losthorizons teaches. Once you understand where you stand as a taxpayer and what the law is, it all becomes very clear. Labor is not a taxable event in the 50 states. It is if you work for a federal agency or live in DC or the 7 territories owned by the corporation.
I'm aware of what they teach. That said, I've seen many other experts teaching many things with the appearance of great authority... and seen many end up in prison. I'm really happy it is going well for you. I think Pete may be one of the few who have the truth, who do it right.
There are many crackpots teaching false things quite convincingly, like David Lester Straight.
Fact: Hendrickson did go to jail for some time on tax-related charges, and he would certainly say to be prepared for the worst as you pursue the truth of the law.
u/tstr
Indeed, I'm aware he did to some time. I don't think it was very significant. Months, if I recall? I don't really recall. That said, it wasn't YEARS. He did get out. Many people get 10+ years for doing this wrong, that I've seen. He's one of the few who appear to be in the know, however it has not been always smooth and easy for him. He has gone through quite a bit.
"Fuck the deep state in the ass, no lube!!!"
...as long as it will be a "dry hump"...
...count me in...
This is what I've done for 8 years.
i did that shit back in 2020, filed as nra and got my money back.
DISCLAIMER: do not follow my footsteps if you dont know how to litigate in court. hiring a lawyer isnt going to help you.
This too is not a permanent solution and can come back to bite people, because it is an insufficient argument. You may well be arguing that you are not a 26 USC 7701(b) resident alien because of the definitions of "United States" and "State" in that section. However, even if you were an NRA you would still be taxed on your income, so you need to determine whether your income is accurately reported by yourself and all information return preparers. Many (not all) are told they have accrued significant penalties such as $5,000 for frivolous filing, so you need to be prepared for that risk, even years later. It's frivolous to say merely "I'm an NRA therefore I can't have income", because it's still possible to have income. There's still time to learn the rest of the law and to ensure your record is complete and correct.
u/AmateurExpert
I suspect there’s a better tactic myself, but not having used it yet, and not being proficient in it, I’m just going to stay back on this one.
Did give the suggestion of what direction I think it is. This solution seems risky for losing constitutional protections.
Just my relatively uninformed $0.02.
The right suggestion is the fact that "income" is not defined by statute or code. In fact Scotus has observed that to define income strictly would likely be "precarious" to the current system.
Obviously foreign money that changes hands between foreigners with no American nexus whatsoever cannot be "income" because Congress has no power to tax it. Therefore it's safe to say that Congress can only tax money transfers where someone alleges federal nexus. The trick is to determine how that allegation is made. It's reasonable to start by looking at the information returns that fly so wildly this season, because they are relied on by both the IRS and the self-assessors to be accurate statements of income. If you submit an information return to the IRS it is presumed you agree it is correct. Since virtually all whom the IRS has collected from have had information returns submitted on their behalf, it's reasonable that the information return alleges federal nexus. Do you see where this is going?
Agreed, but its also your responsibility to refute any w-2 or 1099 forms when you file. But now youre arguing income vs compensation, it doesnt end there.
Ultimately you have to rescind your consent to have a SS number assigned to you. From my understanding they wont actually update any records but you can use that letter to the SSA as evidence and hold them liable for the error resulting from their inaction.
the downside: you give up all access to federal programs. social security, medicaid, unemployment, all of it.
in theory; not financial advice.
It's not necessary to rescind the SS number, but if you can do so (or become Amish and get a legacy exception) all the better. The connection to the SS number, like the NRA argument, is not the nexus involved.
Yes, if a W-2 or 1099 series information return is incorrect, it should be corrected by accurate testimony. I'm not arguing income vs. compensation; according to 26 USC 61, income includes compensation for services. Therefore it's essential to read the law to determine if information returns are correct, and it's one's responsibility to ensure that everything one reports to the IRS is correct according to the law. Any tax preparer can tell you the procedures for correcting an information return that a payor refuses to correct, although they may not agree with the reasoning that leads one to ask the question; the standard procedures are the remedy prescribed by law for correcting such reporting errors and should be followed. Since the IRS is designed to take advantage of any error and to assume the worst as to amounts due, without any incentive to help the filer produce correct testimony or demonstrate the situation to be less than the worst, I tell everyone to learn the law and apply it scrupulously.
Non-resident alien?
correct, because i am foreign to the government in the context of 26 usc.
Anything outside of DC is technically foreign to the federal government. But if you live in a ZIP code that is a federal address, so...
Please see what I wrote about NRAs. Also, it would help you if you answered my question instead of focusing on zip codes. The several states are "foreign" in one sense and "domestic" in another, and PR, VI, AS and other territories are "domestic" in many senses too, so unless legal context is specified the claim is void for vagueness. Focus on this: what is an example of an information return that is typically received this time of year alleging that income was paid in certain categories in the prior year? There are many good answers. Whichever one(s) you pick, it's easy to find the law that specifies what should be reported on that form, trace the definitions inherent in that law, and determine whether the reporting is correct. But just because it's easy doesn't mean that people want to do it when they can rely on what other people have told them instead of researching for themselves. You're a researcher of some experience, so I don't know why you wouldn't answer my simple question or continue to propose other avenues without providing sources. I'm attracted to this forum because it's high-effort.
u/Furecrotch
Which relies on the false presumptions they make upon your property status to form a false nexus.
Also your zip code which is a federal phenomenon would have nothing to do with county property tax.
Fight the false presumptions instead of worrying about zip codes.
Brushaber stated in his case that he was a New York citizen. He was born in New York. The US Treasury, in TD2313, referred to him as a nonresident alien.
TD 2313, despite that unique interpretation that floats over its head, gives no benefit to the claim that NRA status helps anyone. It appears on p. 53-55 of Treasury Decisions volume 18 (1916) and says, "The normal tax shall be withheld at the source from income accrued to nonresident aliens ... as in the case of citizens and resident aliens." It never says Brushaber was an NRA, it says that pursuant to the (very sweeping) Brushaber decision it should be noted, if anyone asks, that NRAs pay taxes the same as residents and citizens.
Again, the only way to solve the problem is to read the original texts. If you have income, pay the tax, if you don't, don't. If an information return alleges that you have income when you didn't, the ordinary means of correcting that allegation should be used, using the definitions for classes of income as found in the law. Nothing to do with NRA status, gold, bankers, reparations, corporations per se, or any of the other imaginative interpretations not based on law. It does have to do with federal nexus, but unless the federal nexus is specifically defined and all classes of nexus enumerated, sweeping statements about nexus are usually wrong. The nature of the multilayered scheme makes it so because each layer has different terms.
c/AmateurExpert
You are partly correct. Brushaber claimed that he was being taxed on dividends from Union Pacific Railroad in Utah. If UP had been a Utah corporation, Brushaber would not have been taxed. He was taxed because UP was chartered by Congress, therefore making it a source from within the United States (federal government/DC/Congress).
That is only a short-term solution, although it's certainly recommended in case the IRS disappears. However, if its successors persist you'll need to know the law and ensure that your nonfiling doesn't get you in trouble due to information returns reporting that you had income.
From my understanding it doesn't make you liable just because an employer reports your income. You become liable the moment you sign your own tax return swearing under penalty of perjury that all information is true and correct.
Well, you're close, but liability isn't the magic word you need. If you earned income, such as from an employer, and are law-abiding, you would lawfully pay the appropriate tax on that income because it's a Constitutional excise. That would seem to be called liability. If you don't have an employer and are not paid income, that would not generate a liability. Because income tax is in the nature of an excise, there must be a way to earn a living without having an employer that generates income for you. But the government considers itself under no responsibility or incentive to tell you how to do so as long as they believe they've formally left the option to you as possible.
What is an "employer"? Does that term include private companies or does it only apply to government agencies?
There are at least four different definitions of employer in the tax code, in Chapters 21-24, pertaining to Social Security, Railroad Retirement, withholding, and Medicaid; those were enacted at different times for different reasons and so they have different definitions. Employer often includes private companies. You'll need to learn the code to be more specific. I can answer questions but it helps if you do a little research to join in. What else do you want to know?
Well I have done a little research on this topic over the past 8 years or so. Not extensive, but some. My reading led me to the conclusion that "employer" and "employee" refer to a relationship with the federal government, and so only those who work for the federal government, directly or indirectly, or in DC itself, have a true tax liability, because the statutory authority can only extend that far.
Now if you bring in the federal reserve, fiat currency, and the fact that every company uses bank accounts of that system it gets a lot more complicated.
I just don't file. If I never enter a contract how can I be liable? And no law can compel a person to perform an act against their will or enter into a contract unwillingly.
Yes, basically, but in different ways in each of Chapters 21-24 (make a mental note of the topics of those four chapters as I stated, for future reference). Thank you for noticing! Yet because of the differences, it's dangerous to generalize, and that's why, unless you see the whole unfolded, it's easy to make statements that contain enough indirect error to be ruled as frivolous by administrative judges. E.g., it's not only government workers and workers in DC. When people try to make such summary statements the trap is right there. Only relying upon the words of the law directly is sufficient.
The Fed, the fiat, the banks are also other aspects of other schemes, but do not affect the operation of the tax code.
Great question. The answer is that if you are paid by another person, that's an oral contract, and if the other person conveys testimony to the IRS in the form of a tax return stating that the money paid was a category of income then that's the testimony they like to run with. The law provides you recourse if the payor's testimony was mistaken, namely to submit the corrected record (filing is not a liability-creating contract per se, it's a self-assessment and a testimony). The law also provides that after enough time, a couple years, if there is no self-assessment the IRS is empowered to address the testimony it received by assessing you on your behalf, because you abrogated that right by neither affirming nor correcting the testimony they received about you. If you continue inaction the law does eventually permit your property, or you, to be seized, regardless of the fact that your conscience was honored by the system (you were never compelled to act against your conscience, you were just jailed). That's the nature of the beast: it's designed to make everyone feel they are stuck paying just like everyone else.
But we also observe that if you're rich enough you can have people research the law and find ways to pay less than everyone else. That's because it's still an excise, meaning it's avoidable. We are also told repeatedly by the Supremes that the right to labor for pay is a basic property right that cannot be infringed by an excise, which much be on avoidable activity. But they don't want to tell us the resolution of these things. Not filing is not the resolution because it's an abrogation of duty, an "easy out", and a very high risk to you as it goes on year after year. The resolution is to structure and report your affairs in compliance with all law such that the excise for which you are liable is an acceptable amount and within your rights and duties. Because of the Constitutional right to labor for pay, this path is always available to the American.
Since you've researched, do you know what an information return is? Maybe you've received one this year, a copy of one that was sent by the payor to the IRS, stating that you received money last year that fell in certain categories defined by certain form boxes (usually more than one available) according to the definitions in the code? If you know you haven't, great! If you don't know, or if you know you have, then I'd look into where those boxes get their definitions. If you want to know more, pick one of the most common information return forms and we'll look at it in more detail.
Now since this is the IRS, does it not seem fitting and fair that penalties and interest compounded over time should be demanded as well? I am just sayin'.
And if there's just one decimal point out of place, agents go to prison!
"penalties and interest compounded over time should be demanded as well"
https://youtu.be/00w1HGqyxTM?si=P3VsPSMlJbokVIdP
Here’s a question - if they no longer have access to a money printing machine, and need to pay us back in hard, real assets, how is that done?
$FRN 330 trillion is probably a lot of hard assets.
So far.
Allegedly, Govt said no such memo exists via FOIA: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_10-cv-00568/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_10-cv-00568-0.pdf
USA Today says it's a forgery: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2024/02/16/irs-memo-taxes-illegal-16th-amendment/72622193007/
(So it's prolly real...)
"(So it's prolly real...)"
...filed under "Highly Probable"...
I wonder if Retard Finder got the downvoter...lol
I don't usually downvote u/ashlanddog, but when I do it's because Ashland made an unhelpful statement (in this case one on which I already answered the OP in detail).
Anybody could copy the IRS typing format and put Egger's name on it in the 80s, getting the US Attorney's name (Roger Duncan) incorrect; nor would Egger have written such tripe, which could only have been thought to be effective by those who believe they found the silver bullet by rejecting the supreme law and the Supreme Court. The true byzantine labyrinth is quite deeper than the deceptive 16th, but it must remain legally accessible to the common man via the statutes and code. That's why I tell everyone to read the law and apply it scrupulously.
Hmm, didn't you just invoke Finder as to the stupidity of posting the same OP, and now you invoke as to the stupidity of downvoting against OP? Very sus fren. Add: No wait, maybe you mean the downvoter of you rather than Ashland, and maybe you mean your "it's prolly real" to be sarcasm? Fine, I'll downgrade my assessment of you, from you being wrong, to you just being unable to convey sarcasm accurately.
"I don't usually downvote u/ashlanddog, but when I do it's because Ashland made an unhelpful statement (in this case one on which I already answered the OP in detail)."
“There is no conversation more boring than the one where everybody agrees.”
Michel de Montaigne,
...I don't live and die on the "hills" I post here...
...many times I totally disagree with what I post, but I found the material interesting or the writing compellingly done so I throw it up against the wall and stand back and watch the fireworks...
...so don't worry SwampRanger, you will never be in the dog house......
...as to your sentiment, most " official documents" that float through here are flawed at best and fraudulent at the worst...
...carry on...
Aaron Russo was killed for trying to tell everyone this type of information.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNNeVu8wUak
👆🏻 This helped kick off my journey as a conspiracy "nut" way back in the day. This and Zeitgeist...
"Aaron Russo was killed for trying to tell everyone this type of information."
...to be willing to die for the truth is a very noble endeavor...
u/ConspiracyLinks is likely absolutely right. Russo ran for president as a Libertarian. However, his film only exposed about 80% of the scheme and also included up to 40% of useful but less direct information. He tried, and was permitted to roll with what he had, but one reason for the permission may have been he didn't have it all. The film was largely released to art houses rather than to mainstream theaters.
Here, Ashland, I'll share what I know. I saw a video of Russo describing his conversation with David Rockefeller in which he turned down that devil. The video is probably well-scrubbed by now so Godspeed if you find it. I promise you that Russo described his words to Rockefeller as follows: "I told him: as a Chr-- as a person of faith I couldn't do that." It's my belief that Russo was about to call himself a Christian but then remembered that he would be heard by his fellow Jews as well and wasn't ready to say the whole word and remembered his chosen euphemism in time. The fact is that Russo was well-heeled for many years as a rising Hollywood star and then he was invited to the inner circle and turned it down and had to suffer the consequences. And somewhere along the line he seems to have chosen the example of the man that turned down the illegal transfer of all the kingdoms of the world at once.
"And somewhere along the line he seems to have chosen the example of the man that turned down the illegal transfer of all the kingdoms of the world at once."
Matthew 4:8-11
KJV
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; and saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.
...but in Russo's case, the Devil did not leave him...
...this post has led into very deep waters...
...God bless you SwampRanger for your insight and patience...
...where we howl 1, we howl all...
...carry on Patriot...
Wow....
16th Amendment ratified 1909, followed by the revenue act of 1913 further supported by SCOTUS 1916. Maybe it can be undone. Fingers crossed!
Allegedly ratified. Total fraud, totally illegal
This!!!! DING DING DING!!
I’ve always heard it wasn’t properly ratified.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-16/#amendment-16
"Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., which made a nationwide income tax nearly impossible."
...compelling addendum...
...carry on...
Ah, but what is “income”, as defined by statute, in their code?
Federal reserve system was a fraud. The income tax system was a fraud. The capture of the earth was a fraud. The capture and monetization of humanity was a fraud!
"The capture and monetization of humanity was a fraud!"
...for the fraudsters, it was fun while it lasted...
...doggy winks...
Trump should pass an Eo that says where as contributions to the IRS are unconstitutional and confirm that All Americans may voluntarily dis enroll from payment by refraining from filing for the tax cycle starting now. Any who voluntarily file will be allowed to pay taxes. All payroll tax deductions are to cease immediately and the IRS is officially no longer able to investigate or enforce non payment or non filing. Any enforcement will be a felony by those doing it. Lets see how many stop filing. .
That's somewhat close to what he should do! Not because contributions are unconstitutional but because their definition as constitutional is loaded with demonstrable deceptive intent.
"I've seen at least 5 different designs of this fake document over the last 10 years."
...producing these documents is a cottage prison industry put forth by individuals who tried to turn this information into reality...
...carry on...
I remember when Peter Schiff used to say this and people who refused to pay got jailed.
Irwin Schiff, not his son Peter. He didn't help much.
ok, thanks!
Well, isn't this interesting...We could be in for a windfall of our tax money. It would be nice, but do I think we will get it back-simple answer is no. The more complex answer is this might happen if we pressure the government. They certainly don't/didn't care about all of us when these things were pulled on us, so maybe.
This doesn't seem legit; I have an old digital typewriter in a closet somewhere that could knock one of these out really fast. I love how there's even an explanation included as to why this has never ever been mentioned anywhere else- but I'm pretty sure there'd be a firsthand account of someone getting their money back.
"This doesn't seem legit; "
...doggy winks...
...beware of someone or something that is exactly what you want..
This is a forgery and anyone giving credibility to this canard really needs to do their research. This has already been tested in court and ruling went against them. Do your research.
In the most simplest of terms, the tax code is confusing. Confusion is the nature of his game. Trump knows it, we know it and they know it. Master clusterfuck which means it's a racket. K.I.S.S. my ass. At the end of the day, wouldn't a VAT tax generate more cash flow and revenue? CPAs and Intuit stock could take a ding. IRS is weird with old code (Fortran) and Masonic symbolism at headquarters. We can do better, said little country of Monaco.
"We can do better, said little country of Monaco."
...indeed...
...compelling addendum, nicely stated...
...howl on littlelady...
Kind words, big dog
...dogs are notoriously honest...
...wags tail jovially...
Indeed. I adore them. Capacity for love may eclipse humans.
No, because a VAT tax goes directly against the purchases of earning a living and thus by modern theory would break the 14th Amendment right to property. Neither excises nor tariffs go against earning a living, but the income tax (an excise) has been interpreted in such way that defacto it cramps earning a living for millions of people. As Ron Paul says, repeal the income tax and replace it with nothing. But replacing it with tariffs is an okay compromise due to optics.
Is this the Class Action Lawsuit?