Aren't You Really, Really Glad YOU'VE Taken Control Of How Much Of YOUR Money Washington Gets To Spend, Just As The Founders Intended?
While I Was Otherwise Occupied Over The Last Few Weeks,...
...UPSTANDING
AND OUTSTANDING AMERICAN MEN AND WOMEN have
kept on winning victories for the rule of law
through educated filings and the recovery of
every penny withheld from them or paid-in to
any government as "income" taxes-- Social
security, Medicare and all, of course! It's
my pleasure to share another batch with all
of you, and to encourage you to share them
in turn with everyone in your address book.
After viewing these checks and notices, and the filings that produced them,
please don't overlook the message to (or, at least, about) the 'Flat Earth Society' that follows.
These are the folks responsible for the many articles over the last few months
trying to ignorantly wrap an article about the "income" tax around the myth
that this year marks its 100th anniversary
Those responsible for these articles-- who are astonishingly immune to
actual data proving their cherished mythologies to be wrong-- are today's
'Flat Earthers'. They deserve our pity. Their work, on the other hand,
deserves and demands something else entirely, which I'll discuss anon...
First, though, ALL HAIL THE VICTORS
VALIANT:
Eugene Duffy
This November, 2010 complete refund
of 2007 withholdings (with
interest) is a result of an amended filing (really, a replacement filing
with explanation). See the docs
here.
Anon.
Note the overpayment
acknowledgement in the "Summary" section of this May, 2012 notice, and see the filed docs that led to this
refund credit
here.
Willie Shields
Don't be misled-- while what the IRS
alleges to be owed for a different year is made the most prominent
feature of this May, 2013 notice, it is, in fact, a notification that
Willie has been
refunded everything withheld from him during 2012-- which was
all Social
Security and Medicare taxes (see the "Billing Summary"
section). The amount has simply been gratuitously diverted to pay off what
the government alleges to be outstanding balances
for other years.
Larry _
See the docs that produced this
June, 2013
partial victory
here (and
a related FAQ here).
Holiday Chock
See the docs that produced Holiday's August, 2013 victory for the rule of law
here.
THESE LATEST EXAMPLES OF VICTORIES BY AVERAGE AMERICANS in
enforcing our fundamental law
...since the DOJ
itself was compelled to move for dismissals of
multiple IRS efforts to attack
CtC
as "promoting false or fraudulent tax schemes" in
different courts across the country in 2004 and 2005;
...since a
carefully-inaccurate description of a typical
CtC-educated
filing was listed as #1 on the IRS "Dirty Dozen" list in
2006 (reappearing again as #5 in 2007 and #10 in 2009). Interestingly,
in 2008 the Sixth
Circuit Court Of Appeals excused this and similar efforts to mislead,
declaring that the government can't be prohibited from
"SUGGESTING
[that CtC] promotes false
or fraudulent tax schemes"... (emphasis added);
...since the launching of the hokey and contrived IRS PR-campaign
"lawsuit" against my wife and me
in 2006, ostensibly seeking to recover
refunds made to us several years ago-- which even the United States
Treasury Department acknowledges were, and remain, perfectly proper--
by means of an unprecedented court order commanding us to replace
previously-made sworn testimony with words dictated by the government
declaring our earnings to be of a taxable variety and to only speak
government-approved words in the future;
...since the IRS launched a vicious
assault on me
personally in 2008 in a desperate, deeply corrupt effort to cow the educated into
paralysis and frighten the ignorant away from the liberating truth, so as
to continue successfully bleeding both into penury and subjugation
Current Total Dollar Value Of Posted Victory Examples:
Do you have a victory to share?
Click
here to learn how to do so.
How About You?
Have You Done Your Fair Share In Support Of The Rule Of Law
?!
Or are you STILL unable to let actualhardfactsandevidence overcome the mere
propaganda you've been fed all your life by those with a well-defined and substantial
financial interest in keeping you mindlessly ignorant of the truth about
the tax?
THAT IS, ARE YOU A FLAT-EARTHER?!
WAKE UP!!
THERE'S NOTHING MORE PATHETIC AND SHAMEFUL than intellectual dishonesty. There's
little more poisonous to society than intellectual dishonesty concerning matters
of historical fact.
As George Orwell reminds us in '1984', "He who controls the past controls the
future." Orwell means that where society goes en masse depends very greatly on
where society believes it is coming from. Any good propagandist would second
Orwell in this, and explain that if, for instance, people can be convinced that
their grandparents were brutally-exploited slaves of unrestrained capitalists,
they can be led to embrace ever-more socialist public policies, even though
common-sense tells them that socialism is the antithesis to general prosperity.
Similarly, if people can be taught that gold and silver were volatile and
troublesome media of exchange when America used the gold standard, they can be
brought to embrace and defend fiat currency. And if Americans can be convinced
that the income tax began in 1913 after the Sixteenth Amendment, they can be
made to believe that the amendment inaugurated a new tax-- falling on the
objects of a direct tax but not subject to the apportionment requirement the
Constitution specifies for all such taxes.
This is why persistent intellectual dishonesty about the actual origin of the
income tax is so obnoxious and harmful, and why it must not be tolerated.
People who cling to ignorance-based myths about the subject are, of course,
entitled to do so. Like the 'Flat Earthers' of the past, or any other group
lacking the capacity (or unwilling) to acknowledge an error, these folks deserve
our scorn or pity, but not our ire.
However, articles posted or published which promote or propound upon this
ignorant nonsense are a different matter. EACH SUCH ARTICLE IS A WEAPON AGAINST
YOU AND YOUR LIBERTY.
Each article promoting or propounding the myth of the Sixteenth Amendment as the
origin and authorization of the income tax tells your children, your neighbors,
those who will pay you throughout your life, and those who might be your jurors
someday that the State has been Constitutionally-authorized to simply seize from
anyone whatever 535 members of the political class and their clients and cronies
care to take.
Each such article is an imprinting on the subconsciences of those around you
that you are, in the most practical sense possible, a slave owned by a
collective, subject to being lawfully flogged out into the fields of those in
control of the collective as many days of your life as they choose to take from
you.
Further, of course, each such article is
flatly
wrong. Thus, even if you don't care about your freedom and dignity, or don't
care to inform people of the truth about the tax, such articles should be
denounced simply on behalf of respect for academic accuracy. Slapping this
nonsense out of circulation even just for so detached a reason alone will still
result in promoting the more comprehensive truth, because it is very hard to be
wrong about the true nature of today's income tax when it is understood that it
is the same one adopted in 1862.
So, pat the 'Flat Earthers' on their pointy little heads when you encounter the
pitiful creatures in person. But denounce and debunk their pernicious
myth-mongering whenever it appears in print or post. Your silence in such cases
is just a slow surrender of your rights.
So long as the
people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will
do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name
of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping
men.
HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE CHAIR MIKE ROGERS (R.,
Heart of Darkness) inadvertently but usefully illustrated
fundamental flaws in recent Supreme Court jurisprudence on the
Fourth Amendment the other day. On Tuesday, October 29, Rogers
took the court's deeply-errant doctrine of "reasonable
expectation of privacy" all the way down the reductio ad
absurdum rabbit-hole (albeit without an apparent clue as to
what he was doing).
Arguing that there's no reason to conclude that anyone has been
victimized by warrantless spying because no one has come forward
to complain, Rogers proposed that, "You can't have your
privacy violated if you don't know your privacy is violated,
right?" Happily, this idiocy drooled out of
Rogers' mouth while in a dialogue with a normal person, who
wasn't too flabbergasted to manage a sensible reply.
Watch the exchange here.
HOWEVER, ROGERS MUST BE CUT A LITTLE Nazi foot-soldier,
just-following-orders kind of slack. As manifestly demented as
his perspective plainly is, it actually has its roots in Supreme
Court sophistry being developed since the 1960s.
Here's how that flawed doctrine was constructed: Noting that the
Fourth Amendment uses the expression "unreasonable searches" in
its text, the court concluded that the amendment implicitly
contemplates the alternative of "reasonable searches". Because
the former were prohibited without a warrant, went the train of
thought, the latter, whatever their defining characteristics,
could be assumed to be permissible without a warrant.
The standard chosen by the court for its entirely-invented
"reasonable (and-therefore-no-warrant-required) searches" is
what the court divines to be the target's "reasonable
expectation of privacy". This would be a comical contortion if
the subject weren't so serious; after all, the whole point of
the Fourth Amendment is to lay out the People's well-considered
view that we have an absolute expectation of privacy from the
state, absent grounds for a warrant. We put the Fourth Amendment
in the Constitution in order to deny the state (whether its
executives or its judges) decision-making authority about what
level of privacy is "reasonable".
In fact, there is no such thing as a "reasonable" warrantless
search. Examination of the Fourth Amendment's history and
background make clear to any competent scholar that the meaning
of its language is that ANY search conducted by the state
without warrant (and the satisfaction of all attendant
requirements) is inherently UNreasonable. Please click
here and see that history and background discussed in the
context of an article concerning the ongoing NSA assault on
human rights world-wide, and
here for a more general discussion of the amendment's
meaning and purpose.
NONETHELESS, THE SUPREME COURT HAS GONE WAY SOUTH on the
amendment with its "reasonable expectation" dodge. In practice,
this doctrine can be summarized as, "If you are carrying on a
conversation with a friend other than in person in the
cloistered confines of a darkened and muffled room in your own
house, you have no reasonable expectation that your words could
not be overheard. Under these circumstances, a government agent
can lawfully use any possible means to overhear your words
without needing any pre-existing grounds for doing so." Under
the Supremes' current Fourth Amendment doctrine, that is,
whenever you step across your threshold you are entering a
Constitutionally-unrestrained Stasi-grade police-state.
In light of this doctrine, Mike Rogers' creepy inanity makes a
certain sense. Under this doctrine, the Fourth Amendment doesn't
establish the rules under which any search is lawful and valid;
instead it only establishes rules by which SOME searches are
INvalid (or to which SOME searches must adhere). Under this
doctrine, those rules don't apply to any search that doesn't
violate your [state-determined] "reasonable expectations" of
privacy.
In short, under this doctrine the imposition of an objective
standard for acceptable state surveillance-- which is the actual
purpose of the Fourth Amendment-- is gone. In its place, the
standard imposed by the amendment is treated as subjective, with
the target's [imagined] perceptions determining the lawfulness
of an unwarranted search.
IT'S NOT SO MUCH OF A STRETCH, THEN, for Rogers to argue that if
a target renders himself CAPABLE of somehow being overheard or
scrutinized by any means short of a highly visible physical
invasion of one's darkened and muffled home, he has abandoned
any expectation of privacy, and any unwarranted listening or
scrutiny is lawful. That is, if one has arranged for one's
conversations or other activities to take place in a manner such
that state surveillance won't be apparent (that is, such that
one won't know one's privacy has been violated), one has no
reasonable expectation of relevant privacy (and one's right to
privacy therefore isn't violated by state surveillance).
Seriously crazy and wrong, but not so much of a stretch from the
Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment doctrine. So, the real fault is
not in Mike Rogers' fevered brain.
Rather, the fault but lies with the court (and with every
litigator to appear before any court on a Fourth Amendment issue
who fails to argue the true meaning and purpose of the
amendment). Let's fix this, people! Spread the truth about the
Fourth!
On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit
manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may
be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to
the one in which it was passed.
A Clarification And Apology On Behalf Of A Good And Faithful
Steward Of The Rule Of Law
I may have done him an injustice...
BACK IN EARLY OCTOBER, I POSTED an article criticizing an
item being circulated about the appeal Irwin Schiff is
mounting against the proceedings in trial that led to his
conviction and current incarceration. My critique was based
on the apparent assertion being made that in its reply to
his appeal brief, the government attorneys had admitted
having not refuted Schiff's conclusions regarding the
meaning and import of several Supreme Court rulings on which
he bases his ultimate conclusion that "income" in the
context of the income tax means only "corporate profit". As
I put it (in part):
This [circulated] doc says,
"Now on page 40 the Reply states "the
government did not attempt specifically to
refute Schiff's understanding regarding the
meaning of these cases" (ie, Merchants Loan
& Pollock.) Condensing their statement we
have, "The Government did not attempt to
refute Schiff's understanding of the
Merchants' Loan and Trust Case."
In fact, though, the Reply DOES NOT say this.
What it actually says (with words in this
accurate quotation that don't appear, or are out
of place, in the fabricated version quoted above
in bold) is:
"the government did not attempt to
specifically refute [Schiff's] statement
regarding his understanding of
the meaning of these cases."
See the relevant pages excerpted from the Reply
here; the
misquoted line is at the top of the second page
and highlighted.
Contrary to the deceitful document's
"condensation" of the DOJ statement to: "The
Government did not attempt to refute Schiff's
understanding of the Merchants' Loan and Trust
Case," (which would be taken by the careless
reader as reflecting a tacit government
agreement with Schiff's
errant "income means corporate profit" theory),
what the DOJ REALLY says with this statement is
merely that: "the government didn't refute
Schiff's contention as to what he understands
these cases to mean."
That is, the government didn't dispute that
Schiff believes what he says he does about the
meaning of these cases (by attempting to argue
that Schiff isn't sincere in what he claims to
believe-- as it might have done in an effort to
support the "willfulness" element of the charges
against him).
Needless to say, declining to argue that Irwin
Schiff doesn't really believe what he says he
understands from Merchant's Loan and Trust
is not in any way admitting, tacitly or
otherwise, that what Schiff says he understands
about the tax from the ruling is a correct
understanding of the tax. But that's how this
deceptive document is meant to be mistakenly
understood by its readers.
EARLIER THIS WEEK, HOWEVER, I heard from Irwin through a
mutual friend, and was told that Irwin (who, it turns out,
had written the piece that was circulated, and which I was
discussing) did not mean to be taken as making the claim I
ascribed to the item. Rather, he meant to say only that the
government admits to not having refuted that Irwin holds the
understanding he does, just as the declaration of the
government, accurately quoted and re-stated, plainly says.
I am grateful for this clarification, and sorry that I took
the circulated document other than as intended. I think well
of Irwin Schiff, and deem him to be a man of integrity and
courage far beyond that of most others. Indeed, even in
writing my original piece making the criticisms I did, I
took it for granted that Irwin was not responsible for what
I saw as an effort to perpetuate a long-standing
misunderstanding about the tax. As I said in a note
following my critique:
(By the way, my observations about
this unfortunate deception are not to be taken as criticisms
of Irwin Schiff personally, who I presume had nothing to do
with this effort to deceive, and who I hold in high regard
as a true patriot and important pioneer in the quest to
uncover the truth about the tax. It is also worth noting
that the actual admission by the government seems on its
face to raise serious questions about the government having
actually carried its burdens as to "willfulness" in this
case. I hope the Ninth Circuit addresses this point
correctly and Irwin finally receives justice in this
affair.)
In light of Irwin having cleared up this confusion, I want
to offer this apology for my mistake, and take this
opportunity to re-state my agreement with the point actually
meant by his article, which is that the government failed to
carry its burden as to the "willfulness" element of the
charges against him, and has apparently admitted this
forthrightly. On this basis Irwin's appeal should be
promptly granted, for without willfulness there is no crime.
As I said previously,
I hope the Ninth Circuit addresses this
point correctly and Irwin finally receives justice in this
affair-- his conviction without "willfulness" proven being
the real shabby little fraud involved in all the events
discussed here.
My Latest Article On "Includes" Is Now Posted As A
Sharable, Printable .Pdf
A LOT OF YOU ASKED THAT I MAKE MY LATEST ANALYSIS ON "INCLUDES" available as a
permanent post, and so I have now done so. Find it
here as a .pdf; consider
yourselves encouraged to share it widely, especially in conjunction with
this file and
this file.
ALSO, BOTH
THE
WEBPAGE AND
THE .PDF OF 'The Fascinating Truth About The 16th Amendment' has been
updated with early 20th Century average pay rate data.
We each have our reasons, and our story. It's time, and it's needed, for
you to share yours with the world.
Everyone's failure to step up and fulfill
this simple request is really getting to me, now...
"The day we see truth and do not speak is the
day we begin to die."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
What does it
for you?
Is it simply
because no moral and upstanding person has any choice when it comes to
telling the truth over his or her signature, whether on tax forms or
anywhere else?
Is it recognition of the critical importance of the rule of law,
and the knowledge that if everybody leaves its caretaking to someone else,
it will soon be lost to us completely?
Is it the money?
Maybe it's
just simple respect for your own rights as a human being, who is not and
cannot be not involuntarily subordinated to others?
Maybe it's just
simple respect for your general civic responsibility to be the grown-up and
enforce frugality and restraint on a big, powerful creature of our own devising
which otherwise is like a badly-raised teenage boy given whiskey and car keys
and let loose on the road to wreak havoc?
Or is it, perhaps,
a more acute anxiety that if our bonfire of a state isn't damped, and quickly,
it'll soon burn down the house around us all?
What IS it that
firms up your jaw and stiffens your resolve?
It's time to
take off the bushel and share your light!
I would like
you to think about what it is that motivates you for a few moments (or all
day, if you like), and then send me your thoughts. I want to put YOUR reasons to work inspiring folks who
don't yet understand what this is all about.
In this day
and age, the most effective way
for you to share your thinking
for the benefit of others is to video-record yourself talking about how you
feel, and explaining what inspires and motivates YOU.
All you need is a
webcam or cell-phone equipped with a camera. If you don't have, or know how to
use, one of these, have a friend help.
If needed, write a little script for yourself. Better, though, to just speak
extemporaneously, after spending a little time sorting out your thoughts and
getting down into your heart.
Keep yourself to
no more than 2 or 3 minutes,
and keep in mind that the purpose is not to educate, but to
INSPIRE, ENCOURAGE and ENERGIZE. Your video will be one of many to be shared.
You needn't
feel any obligation to be profound, and you shouldn't try to explain
anything about the law, other than to say that you have read it and you know
it's on your side. You just need to be sincere, and uplifting. Your object
is to make your audience want to have what you have, and to be where you are
in your heart.
Keep in mind that you're speaking to an
audience that doesn't yet know ANYTHING about the subject, and whose first
reaction is, "This must be illegal; this must be dangerous; this is too good to
be true." You want to pull that audience right past such things, and
straight to a focus on truth, morality, and our American heritage of liberty
and the rule of law.
Remember:
INSPIRE, ENCOURAGE, ENERGIZE.
Speak about rights. Speak about morality, and the obligation of a grown-up
and responsible person to speak the truth and to enforce the Constitution. Speak
about everyone's duty
to give to God what is God's, always, and to Caesar only
what is really Caesar's. Speak of your obligation to respect yourself, and to
look out for the current and future well-being of your children and your fellow
citizens.
If you have had victories, describe them.
Better still, show them, if possible.
Be clear about
just what you accomplished: EVERYTHING
back-- Social Security, Medicare and all; a "notice of deficiency" closing
notice; an on-paper agreement or acknowledgment that your earnings weren't
subject to the tax and everything withheld or paid-in was an "overpayment";
a transcript showing all $0s; or whatever happened.
When you speak of state victories, name the state. If you had to
overcome balkiness from a tax agency before winning any victory, describe that,
too!
Remember, your
purpose is to INSPIRE, ENCOURAGE and
ENERGIZE.
If you're dealing with ongoing balkiness, describe that,
too, if you wish-- but be sure to explain why you're not discouraged, and why you are not
standing down, not slinking back into the barn, and not choosing to endorse the lies.
Mention what you do for a living, whether you're a doctor, homemaker, lawyer,
trucker, IT guy or gal, or a retiree or student. Help people understand that the
company of grown-up activist Americans they are being invited to join cuts
across all demographics and all interests-- with the common denominator being
respect for the law and love of the principles on which this great country was
founded.
This is
your chance to get a LOT accomplished.
We've all had
frustrating occasions of trying to explain all this to a friend, neighbor,
family member or co-worker, only to pile up against the wall of a mind not
yet ready to listen and learn. Here is your chance to address a
self-selected audience of folks who have themselves decided that it's time
for them to begin paying attention, and have clicked on your testimonial for
exactly that reason.
So, please
make and send those videos right away! The restoration of institutional
respect for individual rights and the rule of law depends on enough
individuals insisting upon it. Do your part to let those starting to rub the
sleep from their eyes know that there is a community already waiting for their
fellowship with open arms and open hearts and shining spirits.
Q. WHAT
ARE THE LEGAL STATUTES OF LIMITATION, if any, for filing a corrected federal tax return? If open ended, could that mean all previously filed returns by someone engaged in private sector activities are fair game?
A. FIRST,
UNDERSTAND THAT THE PHRASE "CORRECTED RETURN" is likely to contribute to poor communication, or fuzzy thinking. To clarify: The first return filed by the individual with whom it is concerned is an "original return", no matter how late it is filed. Any subsequent return filed
concerning the same period is an "amended return", not a "corrected return".
(However, if the "original return" filed was
actually invalid-- as opposed to merely declared "frivolous" in the sort of IRS ploy discussed
here-- the filing will be considered a legal nullity, meaning that the return will not be considered to have ever been filed at all. In such cases, the first subsequent return filed by the same individual will then be the "original return"-- and should be done on an "original return" form... See the discussion of Schiff- and "861"-style returns on
this page for examples of actual
invalid filings.
In the same vein, it will be important for many to understand that a nominal "Substitute For Return" (SFR) which the IRS may use in regard to a normal annual filer IS NOT A RETURN. See 'About 1040s And Claiming Refunds' in CtC, and the following from a GAO response to an inquiry by Senator Daniel Moynihan:
Even after a SFR is alleged to have been created, the first return filed by the person concerned is still the original return,
and should be done on an "original return" form-- not an "amended return" form.
“In Phillips v. Commissioner, supra at 437-438, we held that a "dummy return", i.e., page 1 of a Form 1040 showing only the taxpayer's name, address, and Social Security number, was not a section 6020(b) return.”
“The mere fact that respondent's files contain information upon which a tax might be determined does not transform his files into a section 6020(b) return. See Cabirac* v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. ----, (2003).”
“The dates which appear on the numerous documents that respondent alleged to be section 6020(b) returns do not match; indeed, the date entries span several years. We cannot agree that this conglomeration of documents, which appears to be respondent's administrative file, would satisfy the requirements of section 6020(b) even if it were in evidence. See Cabirac* v. Commissioner, supra.”
United States Tax Court, SPURLOCK v. CIR, No. 6438-01, April 29, 2003.
*See background on
CtC Warrior Mike Cabirac's TC case, and his subsequent victory for the rule of law,
here;
and a related IRS OCC memorandum
here.)
AS TO THE "STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS", it is certainly not "open-ended" regarding
claims for the return of property (see the
Digital Appendix for the
relevant statutory text). Summarizing that limitation as practically
applied, the statutory look-back period can best be thought
of as running for three years beginning (that is, running back from) the day a
return would have been considered required (without consideration as to whether
one could properly have been "required" in any particular case at all).
For instance, in order to claim the return of property withheld or paid-in in
2003, the return making the claim must be filed no later than April 15, 2007 (or
August 15, 2007 if an application for extension had been filed by April 15,
2004).
The following language will help illuminate this:
"Internal
Revenue Code §6511(b)(2)(A) imposes a ceiling on the amount of credit or
refund to which a taxpayer is entitled as compensation for an overpayment of
tax: "[T]he amount of the credit or refund shall not exceed the portion of the
tax paid within the period, immediately preceding the filing of the claim,
equal to 3 years plus the period of any extension of time for filing the
return." 26 U. S. C. §6511(b)(2)(A)." Baral v. United States, 528 U.S.
431 (2000) (Emphasis added.)
and:
“Under 26
U.S.C. § 6511(b)(2)(A), Ehle may obtain by refund only those taxes paid within
the three previous years. Under 26 U.S.C. § 6513(b)(1), any amount withheld
from wages is deemed paid on the April 15th following the close of the tax
year. Because Ehle's refund claim was filed more than three years after the
amounts withheld in 1969-71 were deemed paid, the claim is barred by section
6511(b)(2)(A).” Ehle v. United States, 720 F.2d 1096 (9th Cir. 1983)
(Emphasis added.)
(Note: At least two federal district courts have held that the look-back period
is actually six years in the case of claims for the return of property which was
not, in fact, paid-in as tax-- which would be true of anyone who had never
characterized the receipts from which the withholding was done as being "income"
by declaring it to be so on a return.
For
instance, in
Wachovia Bank v. United States, 95 AFTR 2d 2005-817, a Florida
district court held that under certain circumstances a refund of
erroneously paid taxes can be claimed for up to six years
following payment, interpreting the three year statute of
limitations (codified at 26 USC 6511) as only applying when a
return was actually required. The court held that when a
return was NOT required, the more general six-year limitation on
civil actions against the United States applies.
This
ruling did not address the question of whether establishing that
a mere allegation of the receipt of "income" in an
amount above the filing-requirement threshold was erroneous will
trigger this exception-- I suspect that the default position of
even this court would be in the negative. Nonetheless, this
ruling offers a good deal of support to an argument on that
point, and has to be placed in the "thumbs up"
column.)
In light of these statutory look-back provisions, returns claiming refunds of
amounts withheld or paid-in more than three (or at most six) years prior to the
claim might well be called "frivolous" (as in, "having no basis in law")--
although NOT meeting the definition of "frivolous returns" subject to penalty
under 26 USC 6702 for that reason.
NOTE: Lawsuits over amounts claimed for refund but not returned are subject to a
two-year statute of limitations that begins running at the earlier of either the
issuance of a formal "notice of disallowance" of the claim (with explanation--
see
26 USC §6402(k)) or after six months have passed without satisfaction since
the filing of the claim (the 1040, etc.). See
26 USC §6532.
ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE IS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS of which I am aware on
simply correcting the record. Thus, even when it is too late to claim a refund, there may still be a considerable benefit to filing, if one is being dunned for alleged, but erroneous liabilities and/or related penalties and interest. It is as certain as day following night that if the body of evidence on the record relating to any particular year were to change, any calculations, conclusions and claims being prosecuted by a tax agency based upon that body of evidence must also change...
Finally, another slight digression, as the subject of accuracy of terms related
to this subject has already been broached above: While W-2's, 4852's, K-1's and 1099's are themselves technically 'returns' ("information returns"), clarity is best served by confining the use of the term 'return' to its conventional application, i.e. 1040's, etc.. (In the same vein, by the way, the various flavors of 1040s-- i.e. 1040x, 1041, etc.-- ARE NOT "information returns"...)
Thus, call 1040s of any flavor "returns", and call W-2s, 1099s, K-1s ands so
forth "information returns".
IN ANOTHER ARTICLE ON THIS PAGE I SPOKE OF AMERICAN HERO EDWARD
SNOWDEN, who is now rightly celebrated for his efforts at
spreading an important truth. I hope YOU are doing YOUR
part at being an American Hero by spreading
this
document
far and wide! Anything and everything must be done to get it into a
state of viral distribution across America.
I'm asking you to help me with this by very purposefully sending
this link to every single person you can, with a little
note from yourself urging your correspondents to read the file,
study it, and verify for themselves each assertion made and each
fact cited. Urge your correspondent to let what is learned
thereby percolate and settle in and begin shining its
transformational light on his or her mental landscape, and in
the meantime, to PASS IT ALONG TO OTHERS in the same way!
It is critically-important that all Americans regain their
once-common understanding that even after 1913, capitations-- taxes on
undistinguished, commonplace revenues and/or the activities that
produce them-- remain subject to the apportionment rule, and
that the income tax is not in conflict with that fact, being NOT
a tax on undistinguished, commonplace revenues and/or the
activities that produce them (however misleadingly worded parts
of the tax law may be, and however routinely misapplied at the
expense of the uneducated, apathetic or intimidated the tax may
have been over the last 70 years).
Seriously, my friend. Even if you never do "action items",
please do this one.
Right now. Without fail. Please.
You may not recognize how doing this will make any difference. I
tell you, it will make ALL the difference.
This document is the anti-body to all the germs of error,
disinformation and misunderstanding that allow the "ignorance
tax" to persist. It needs to be given a chance to take root in
as many minds as possible-- especially those NOT in the
CtC community.
In many of these minds, perhaps, this truth anti-body will
wither for lack of a hospitable environment. But in just as
many, it will flourish and bloom, and those folks will become
the patient and innovative teachers of others.
Pleas help me with this oh-so-important project.
-Pete
P. S. I know a lot of folks out there have
self-defeating notions planted in their minds about how
clearing up confusion about the "income tax" won't
matter, "'Cause they'll just pay for all the badness
with inflation, man!" or whatever.
No, they won't.
If "they" could do that and survive politically, (and
weren't getting a whole lot more out of the
maladministration of the "income tax" than just a couple
of trillion dollars a year, as well), the tax would've
been dropped with a grimace and without a backward
glance like the universally-hated thing that it is, at
least forty years ago. This "they'll just inflate" thing
could only be said by someone not old enough (or alive
at all) during the 1970s when we had a test of just how
Americans would tolerate real inflation...
(Not that we're going to be spared getting a good dose
of inflation soon anyway, you understand, unless we very
quickly shrink the state down so small that it no longer
has the resources to quash the emergence of free and
valid currencies. This will only happen by Americans
reclaiming individual control of their resources, as is
relied upon by the framers in their design for a
meaningfully-Constitutionally-limited republic-- and
that, of course, is what
this
document is all about.)
The misunderstanding of the income tax is the thoroughly
cultivated thing that it is (and anyone reading through
this
document will come to understand
just how diligent is that cultivation) BECAUSE THE
MISAPPLIED TAX IS THE INDISPENSABLE LIFEBLOOD OF THE
UNRESTRAINED STATE. The state knows this well.
Indeed, the reason the truth about the tax is hedged
about with a more enormous army of lies (and
constantly-recruited "stakeholding" defenders) than any
other organ of the state is because it is so vital to
Leviathan's excesses, ambitions and survival. It is the
heart of the monster.
This
document is the monster's bane.
Your efforts to spread this shaft of illuminating,
inspiring and disinfecting sunlight will do more for
your future well-being and that of your children than
anything else you could do.
"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can
do something. What I can do, I should do and, with the help of
God, I will do."
-Everett Hale
(...and every other person who ever really deserved liberty)
Your tax dollars being wasted on JFK assassination
mythology
THE GOVERNMENT BROADCASTING SERVICE (PBS) TREATED ITS
AUDIENCE to a little wash, rinse and spin-dry theater
Wednesday night. The program 'Nova' spent an hour
on a piece titled
Cold Case JFK, archly peddling a rather lame
defense of the "single bullet" and "lone nutcase gunman from
the rear" arguments clung to by Kennedy assassination
coincidence theorists* for the last fifty years.
The effort was very tedious. Numerous assumptions and
assertions which are necessary for the viability of the "lone nut"
theory--
but which have long-since been revealed to be fictions or to
still suffer from gaping holes-- made cameo appearances
without discussion, and were instead treated as to be taken
for well-established fact.
In fact, the presentation was designed to set up the
straw-man proposition that the only open questions
concerning the killing were whether the rifle purportedly
used by Lee Harvey Oswald was capable of shooting a single
round through Kennedy and Texas Governor John Connally in a
manner consistent with Connally's wounds and some of
Kennedy's, and how it could be that all the obvious
evidence that the fatal shot to Kennedy's head came from the
front was being
misunderstood. Both of these issues are critical problems for the
"no conspiracy here-- just move on and don't look back"
conspirators.
These two issues are by no means the only problems for that
argument, however; more have cropped up pretty much every
year in the fifty since the killing. So, resolving these
questions would NOT settle anything about the case, and in
any event this 'Nova' spin-piece doesn't even manage to do
that. On the contrary its attempt to cobble-together an
explanation that makes the facts fit these theories just
emphasizes the willful blindness of those who cling to them.
THE PROGRAM BEGINS BY TELLING US THAT the Carcano rifle--
later said to be conveniently covered with Oswald's
fingerprints and just as conveniently found propped up
between a couple of stacks of books right where it was
allegedly used for the assassination-- is uniquely accurate.
The narrator (and the stars of the show, a father-and-son
pair of forensic ballistics analysts), actually assert that
unlike the allegedly shabby design of our American-made
ammunition, the bullets specially-made for the World War
II-era Italian-made Carcano (available by mail-order for $13
in 1963) shoot straight, where others wobble in flight and
impliedly are incapable of matching the Carcano's
performance.
We are then shown that these unique bullets inevitably "yaw"
(tumble sideways)
on passing through flesh. This defect is used
in an effort to explain the otherwise inexplicable failure
of the purported rear head-shot to leave an exit wound in
the front of Kennedy's head-- the bullet curved upward in
flight due to the yaw, you see, so much so and so rapidly
that in the split-second of traverse-time its path changed
by nearly 90 degrees.
As unlikely as this
proposition may be (especially after we have watched these
bullets penetrate three-feet of pine boards in a straight
line, and seen that even when fired through the
flesh-simulating material, the bullets pass through without
deviation, and only begin to yaw after exiting, as well as
that when exiting and beginning the yaw, the round covers a
good deal more than a skull's width of ground before
significantly rotating) I'm okay with this possibility for
purposes of argument. But I have a problem with the
proposition that the mate of this tumbling, radically
curving bullet somehow manages the arrow-straight line
through Kennedy and Connally we are told it did when the
program argues for the "single-bullet" notion...
We are also asked to imagine that the magic bullet that made
that latter shot, and was purportedly found lying on a
stretcher at Parkland Hospital, arrived there by working its
way out of John Connally during the hurly-burly of a heart
massage. But this was the bullet that supposedly had ended
up lodged in Connally's leg, not anywhere near his heart,
and it's pretty hard to imagine a heart massage so vigorous
as to prompt the expulsion of a bullet from anywhere, much
less from a relatively distant location.
FINALLY (FOR PURPOSES OF THIS LITTLE CRITIQUE), the 'Nova"
folks argue that all the evidence of a frontal head shot is
misunderstood. The facts that Kennedy's head is caught on
the Zapruder film being violently knocked backward and to
the left, that the blood-spray is plainly to the rear, that
Jacqueline instantly clambers onto the rear of the car in an
instinctive effort to recover the blown-out parts of her
husband's brain and skull where the impact of the bullet had
thrown them, and that JFK's face and front of skull are plainly
visible in photographs of his body with no
exit wound showing are all explained by the remarkable curved
path of the remarkably straight-shooting Carcano bullet, and
a full-body spasm by JFK.
That is, we are invited to believe that the movement of
Kennedy's head-- exclusively to the rear and left-- was
caused by him spasming on impact, with the contraction of
his back muscles yanking his head rearward. This asks that
we accept that the impact of this 2,170 ft. per second,
1,691 ft-lb-of-energy-delivering bullet failed to move
Kennedy's head forward, being entirely and instantly
overcome in that purely mechanical inevitability by a spasm
of apparently superhuman speed and strength.
We
are further asked to imagine that the plainly back-driven
blood and other body-parts resulted from the remarkable
curved progress of the rear-entering bullet, which really
must not only have curved precipitously while traversing no
more than four or five inches of Kennedy's skull, but must
nearly have reversed course in the span. Nothing else could
explain the blood-spray and the bone-and-brain splatter, all
of which was exclusively down and to the rear onto the trunk
of the limousine.
I DON'T PRETEND TO KNOW WHAT DID HAPPEN IN DALLAS on
Friday, November 22, 1963. But I think I have pretty good
reasons for doubting that it was what the 'Nova' folks
presented in this little dose of televised
horse-tranquilizer.
Don't you join me in wishing that Washington had to choose
between, say, funding Obamacare roll-out efforts and funding
PBS spin-fests? Spread
the truth about the tax. That's how this kind of healthy
discipline will be imposed, as the Founders and Framers
intended it to be, and
life in America will be transformed in a way that no one
under the age of fifty could imagine.
*Hat-tip to Pat Shannon for the bon mot
"coincidence theorist", which I found in his new book, 'The JFK
Assassination and the Uncensored Story of the Two Oswalds'.
Getting Free Of The "Income" Tax Scheme Is As Easy As Falling Off A
Bike
To get an idea of how today's "income" tax scheme works, try this
little exercise:
Think of the federal government as a guy named Bob, who lives down
the street from you in a town that is really big on bicycles. Bikes get used for commuting, deliveries, shopping, etc.. In
fact, other than walking, bicycles are the exclusive form of
transportation in your town.
Your neighbor Bob has a by-the-mile bicycle-renting business--
"Bob's Bicycles". Bob's Bicycles is far and away the biggest
business in town.
Part of Bob’s success is because he does a lot of contract business. However, Bob doesn't just get paid by riders who have signed an
agreement with him, or even just those using Bob's bikes. Bob
gets something every time anybody in town does any riding at all,
through an odd combination of circumstances that took many years to
come together.
Here's how it happened...
Bob's Bicycles was launched long ago by the great grandfather of the
present Bob (Bob IV). Great Grandpa Bob started out not only
with a main location for his contract business-- he also had the
bright idea of setting up spots around town where he parked some of
his bikes for use by the more occasional rider, on an "honor
system". Anyone could take and use one of these bikes, but
they were expected to keep track of their mileage, and send Bob a
"1040 Mileage Ridden/Rent Due Form" (and the appropriate rent),
periodically. The initial design of the form was like this:
I, ______________, rode a
Bob's Bicycle a total of _____ miles this year.
At Bob's rental rate of
$.15 per mile, I owe Bob $______
I said that Great Grandpa Bob planned to deal with these occasional
riders on the "honor system", and that's true. But he liked
his money, too, and didn't want to miss anything that was due him. So, after setting up the "self-serve" locations, Great Grandpa Bob
went around handing out "W-2, 1099 or K-1 Rider Reporting Forms" to
every other business in town. The forms-- accompanied by
notices that if Bob didn't get his rent from someone riding a
bicycle in connection with any business, he would sue the company
involved-- said:
You Can’t Fight Well When You Don’t Know What You’re Fighting About.
If you are having an argument with the IRS or any other tax agency,
You are NOT being presumed to have made “corporate profit”.
You are NOT being alleged to have received “foreign income”.
You are NOT entangled in an invisible “adhesion contract”.
You are NOT being obligated by a law whose subject is never identified.
You are being targeted because REAL EVIDENCE exists that YOU PERSONALLY HAD “INCOME” to which the revenue laws apply-- even though that evidence is almost certainly incorrect, and CAN be corrected.
Seriously.
Do you want to win? SPREAD THIS FILE AROUND!
Doing so will accomplish more than anything that happens in a courtroom, more than any argument you make with any bureaucrat, more than ANYTHING else that you can do.
Are You Not Bothering?
Then You're Just Talking The Talk.
You've GOT To Walk The Walk If You Want To Win.
"Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated."
CtC Warrior SanDiegoScott has put together a great little 20-question quiz to test your knowledge of the law regarding the United States "income" tax. Test yourself, test your friends and family! Test your accountant and tax attorney, and help them learn the liberating truth!!
A "Pragmatic" Perspective On The Tax And The Rule Of Law
Hey, don't bother me with that "morality" argument, and all that stuff about "upholding the rule of law". I'm a pragmatist. I'm just interested in looking out for "numero uno", and living my life without any hassles from the IRS!
So I'm okay with submissively letting the government:
take 45% of my earnings;
habituate itself to the conveniences of "creativity" in the writing of laws and the behavior of its officers in courtrooms in order to take that wealth from me with an appearance of legitimacy;
use my money to mess with foreigners on behalf of special interests, engendering hatred and contempt of all Americans-- including me;
use my money to finance an army of bureaucrats who rule my life for the benefit of themselves and their special-interest clients;
use my money to pay for an army of lawyers who will sue me or prosecute me if I try to make my own choices about who works for me and on what terms; about what I say-- and when, and how; about what I do with my own property; about whether I'm equipped to defend myself and those I love; and about how I raise and educate my children;
-- just as long as I'm left alone, dude!
To suffer abuse without complaint or struggle is to suffer it
nonetheless-- but to suffer it without the amelioration of dignity and
self-respect.
If each person receiving this newsletter each week distributed as few as 100 of any of the great outreach tools featured here to co-workers, friends, neighbors and family members (or just strangers on the street, in the mall, etc...), we could have SEVERAL MILLION new Americans suddenly introduced to the liberating truth about the tax!
When directed to a page by topic or link, read everything.
I know that this can mean the investment of a lot of time, attention and effort, but although some may imagine otherwise, I don't write as much as I do because I can't think of any other way to spend my time...
Furthermore, when you encounter a hyperlink within, or associated with, the text you are reading, follow it!
It is pretty common these days for web-based material to be littered with hyperlinks. Sometimes the purpose is to provide definitions or examples, in order to ensure that folks reading the original material aren't presented with a word or reference which they don't understand. Sometimes the links lead to illustrations pertinent to the original text.
It is common-- and perfectly understandable-- for folks who are confident that they are familiar with language or references within the main text they are reading to get in the habit of skipping over included links. I do it all the time, myself!
However, I very rarely include links for definitional or explanatory purposes; and when I DO make a link out of text in one page it is generally to another self-contained page, rather than merely illustrative material. These other pages contain material the clear understanding of which I deem highly important for the proper and complete understanding of the original page. (Links to CtC, the Victories pages, CtC Warriors and so on are obvious exceptions to this general rule. On the other hand, a link to the victory Highlights or 'Every Which Way But Loose' pages, which might seem like such exceptions, are not. The special selection of victories on those pages, and the filed docs and tax-agency correspondences included therewith, themselves constitute highly instructive material which merits careful attention. Thus care needs to be taken in all cases.)
Please make a habit of clicking on all provided links and at least looking briefly to ensure that the linked page is one with which you are completely familiar from another study session.
Finally, please keep in mind that, annoying though it may seem at first blush (but not, I trust, upon reflection), I constantly tweak material already posted. Obviously this doesn't mean that every page is in flux at all times, but it does mean that if you are directed to a page that IS familiar, it's worthwhile to read it through again if it's been a
while since your last having done so.
