An old tax forum, here you will find a lot of what you are looking for.

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by A friend whos been there on September 08, 1998 at 07:30:03:

Tax Problems, Cases & such

Archived Postings from Jun-96 to Dec-97

Good for you new kid!
Always question authority, do your own homework and never be afraid to ask lots of questions.

“Special Apearance”? look it up in Ballintines or Blacks law dictionary.

True! You must have the pertinent year copy of 6209 as it applies to the tax period within which the assessment was made, the IRS will look at the current edition of 6209 which is not retroactive, and then tell you that you are reading your AMDISA file wrong. You must obtain the correct 6209 for the year(s) in question, which I Am sorry to say is not easy. The IRS for the most part is only shipping out current “redacted” copies which are of little value to your plight.

6209? This argument is not dead, just because someone did not know how to argue their position in court.

The IRS can keep themselves out of trouble with one simple point, the Internal Revenue Manual is not law, it’s just policy!

"Internal Revenue manual does not have force and effect of law so that any alleged failure to adhere to its provisions does not necessarily result in invalid assessment." Curley v. United States cite as 791 F. Supp (E.D.N.Y. 1992)


The IR Manual is the IRS’s Bible (cringe) and they beleive in it religiously, this you can use as a hedge against them in court.

For example-

U.S. v. Tweel. 550 F 2d 297, at pages 299-300 it is stated; "Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading... We cannot condone this shocking conduct by the IRS. Our revenue system is based on the good faith of the taxpayers and the taxpayers should be able to expect the same from the government in its enforcement and collection activities. During oral argument counsel for the government stated that these procedures were "routine". If that is the case, we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is "routine", it should be corrected immediately."

"routine". when going strictly by the IRM..

The IRS has to have factual black and white law to back up its position, if you never bring this up (rebut the presumption) you are going to lose in court, because the judge will assume that the IRS has done everything correctly. It’s up to you to prove they did not, you must evidence their un grounded position and then rebut it with solid law.

The IRM can also be used as a research vehicle. You look for tantalizing things like the following-

Internal Revenue Manual Chapter 1100 Organization and Staffing, section 1132.75 states: The Criminal Investigation Division enforces the criminal statutes applicable to income, estate, gift, employment, and excise tax laws involving United States citizens residing in foreign countries and nonresident aliens subject to Federal income tax filing requirements....

Then you go off from this starting point and find the conecting facts in the US Code, CFR, the Federal Register, the federal reporter and so on.

“Administrative due process requires:

(1) opportunity to be heard.

(2) due notice of hearing

(3) fair conduct of hearing

(4) support in record for decision

(5) submission of proposed findings and tentative report

(6) opportunity to file and to be heard upon exceptions to the report

[Ideal Farm, Inc. v. Benson, D.C. N.J. 1960, 181 F Supp 62, affirmed 288 F2d 608, Certiorari denied 83 Sct 1087, 327 US 965, 10 Led2d 128]

“Under the Adminstative Procedures Act, the proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof. Burden of proof means going forward with the evidence.” [Bosma v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, C.A. 9, 1984, 754 F2d 804]

“A full hearing is one in which ample opportunity is afforded to all parties to make, by evidence and argument, a showing fairly adequate to establish the propriety or impropriety, from the standpoint of justice and law, of the step to be taken.” [Boston and M.R.R. v. U.S., D.C. Mass. 1962, 208 Fsupp 661]

( Ballentine's Law Dictionary )

Page 895 def. or. subject to construction as "and" in a statute or municipal ordinance where such is in keeping with the intent of the statute or ordinance as such appears from the entire context. 37 Am J1st Mun Corp section 187; 50 Am J1st Stat section 282.

( Ballentine's Law Dictionary )

Page 73 def. and. In the construction of a statute, the word "and" is construed to mean "or," where such construction is required by the context or is necessary to harmonize the provisions of the statute and give effect to all provisions, to save the statute from unconstitutionality, or to effectuate the obvious intention of the legislature. 50 Am J1st Stat section 282

( Ballentine's Law Dictionary )

Page 785 def. may. Frequently construed as mandatory where relating to the duty of a public officer. 34 Am J1st Mand section 72.

( Ballentine's Law Dictionary )

Page 1171 def. shall. Sometimes meaning "may" as where used in a statute. Rockwell v Junction City, 92 Kan 513, 141 P 299


26 CFR Part 31 CH.1 Subpart-E


26 CFR Section 31.3401(c)-1 Def. Employee
(a) The term employee includes every individual performing services if the relationship between him and the person for whom he performs such services is the legal relationship of employer and employee. The term includes officers and employees, whether elected or appointed, of the united states, a state, Territory, puerto Rico, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing.

26 USC 3401(d) Employer

"for the purposes of this chapter, the term "employer" means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person.

26USC section 7701(a)(1) The term "person" shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.

( Ballentines Law Dictionary )

Page 1038 def. quasi individual. A corporate entity. State v.haun, 7 Kan App 509, 54 P 130.

(Bouviers 1865 law dictionary)

PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.

2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L R. 488; Wooddes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.

(Bouviers 1865 law dictionary)

ARTIFICIAL PERSON. In a figurative sense, a body of men or company are sometimes called an artificial person, because the law associates them as one, and gives them various powers possessed by natural persons. Corporations are such artificial persons. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 177.

The word "citizen" as used by the Fourteenth Amendment is used in a political sense to designate one who has rights and privileges of a citizen of a state or of the United States and does not mean the same thing as a resident, inhabitant, or person. 3A Am Jur 2d section 1411, Baldwin v Franks (1887) 120 US 687, 30 L Ed 766, 7 S Ct 656.

( Ballentine's Law Dictionary )
Page 939 def. person. Inclusive of corporations where used in a statute imposing a license tax. 33 Am J1st Lic section 49.

( Ballentine's Law Dictionary )
Page 939 def. person. Usually inclusive of corporations in a tax statute, 51 Am J1st Tax section 318.


26 USC 3121(e)


(e) State, United States, and citizen
For purposes of this chapter -

(1) State

The term ''State'' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.

(2) United States

The term ''United States'' when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. An individual who is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (but not otherwise a citizen of the United States) shall be considered, for purposes of this section, as a citizen of the United States.

26 USC 7701 Definitions

(a)(9) United States

The term 'United States' when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.

(a)(10) State

The term 'State' shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

26 USC§ 4612. Definitions and special rules

(4) United States

(A) In general

The term ''United States'' means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any possession of the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

(B) United States includes continental shelf areas The principles of section 638 shall apply for purposes of the term ''United States''.

(C) United States includes foreign trade zones

26 USC § 4262. Definition of taxable transportation

(c) Definitions

For purposes of this section -

(1) Continental United States

The term ''continental United States'' means the District of Columbia and the States other than Alaska and Hawaii

26 USC§ 6205. Special rules applicable to certain employment taxes

(a) Adjustment of tax

(1) General rule

If less than the correct amount of tax imposed by section 3101, 3111, 3201, 3221, or 3402 is paid with respect to any payment of wages or compensation, proper adjustments, with respect to both the tax and the amount to be deducted, shall be made, without interest, in such manner and at
such times as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe.

(2) United States as employer

For purposes of this subsection, in the case of remuneration received from the United States or a wholly-owned instrumentality thereof during any calendar year, each head of a Federal agency or instrumentality who makes a return pursuant to section 3122 and each agent, designated by the head of a Federal agency or instrumentality, who makes a return pursuant to such section shall be deemed a separate employer.

(3) Guam or American Samoa as employer

For purposes of this subsection, in the case of remuneration received during any calendar year from the Government of Guam, the Government of American Samoa, a political subdivision of either, or any instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing which is wholly owned thereby, the Governor of Guam, the Governor of American Samoa, and each agent designated by either who makes a return pursuant to section 3125 shall be deemed a separate employer.

(4) District of Columbia as employer

For purposes of this subsection, in the case of remuneration received during any calendar year from the District of Columbia or any instrumentality which is wholly owned thereby, the Mayor of the District of Columbia and each agent designated by him who makes a return pursuant to section 3125 shall be deemed a separate employer.

(5) States and political subdivisions as employer

For purposes of this subsection, in the case of remuneration received from a State or any political subdivision thereof (or any instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing which is wholly owned thereby) during any calendar year, each head of an agency or instrumentality, and each agent designated by either, who makes a return pursuant to section 3125 shall be deemed a separate employer

The word “final”?

Sevral years back, a savvy friend of mine had the IRS cornered on some issue (I forget what) at an administrative meeting, the female IRS officer told him “look all you have to do is write the word final above your signature on the 1040” this denotes that “you” until further notice are not “making the election to be a taxpayer”. He never heard from the IRS again. But then again this guy is a dynamo in court.

W4 is a class 5 gift tax form. please site reference.

I can’t remember were this is in my documents (I have a large collection), probably in the federal register. If you what to know more? Try reading old (non-omitted) copies of TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE, Congress has admitted that at any moment they could suspend Social Security without further notice. if you gift them the money they don’t have to give it back plain and simple, in truth Social Security is wagering insurance and technically illegal in this country


If you were discharged then your contract is over.

The creature from jeckyl island'?
try contacting the John Burch Society for the video or book.

Where would I send interrogatories?

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, But do not expect to get any juicy secrets. Most of the time you have to sue for your answers.

Don’t bother arguing bucks are not Dollars. John Nelson has the best stuff on this issue they killed his kids and poisoned him because of what he knows and is trying to make public.

Marriage licenses make the state a 3rd party..

Read the declaration of Independence and the Constitution for the united States of America. learn about inherant Privledges, Rights and Imunities. Then learn about contracts-

Constitution for the united States of America-

"No state shall enter in to any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

Marriage licenses are contracts I cannot give you direct reference’s at this moment, but Marriage licenses in this country were only intended for people of dissimilar race to tie the knot, which years ago was illegal and only permissible by special license which the state controls and can revoke. Marriage under contract is essentially the formation of a corporation, the state can regulate the ways and means by which the corporation operates, in the interest of the public good. So if the state deems that corporations should not spank their kids, those child assets will be seized and relocated to a safer company. the state considers children assets because of what they will be paying back into the state by way of taxes during their adult years

Several of the things you are looking for believe it or not, are in older copies of the “US Army Field Manual”, which makes sense, when you consider, we have after all been under Marshall law since the great depression.

AID? IMF? Same bank, lots of book on this, write the Federal Reserve they have tons of free stuff they will send you.

But if you really want to know-?

The Internal Revenue Service entered into a "service agreement" with
the U.S. Treasury Department (See: Public Law 94-564, Legislative
History, pg. 5987, Reorganization Plan No. 26) and the Agency for
International Development, pursuant to Treasury Delegation Order No.
91. The Agency For International Development is an International
paramilitary operation (See: Department Of The Army Field Manual,
(1969) FM 41-10, pgs. 1-4, Sec. 1-7(b) & 1-6, Section 1- -10(7)(c)(1),
22 U.S.C.A. 284), and includes such activities as "Assumption of full
or partial executive, legislative, and judicial authority over a
country or area." (See: FM 41-10, pg. 1-7, Section 110(7)(c)(4)) also
see, Agreement Between The United Nations And The United States Of
America Regarding The Headquarters Of The United Nations, Section 7(d)
& (8), 22 U.S.C.A. 287 (1979 Ed.) at pg. 241). It is to be further
observed that the "Agreement" regarding the Headquarters District of
the United Nations was NOT agreed to (See: Congressional Record -
Senate, December 13, 1967, Mr. Thurmond), and is illegally in the
Country in the first instant.

The International Organizational intents, purposes and activities
include complete control of "Public Finance" i. e. "control,
supervision, and audit of indigenous fiscal resources; budget
practices, taxation, expenditures of public funds, currency issues,
and banking agencies and affiliates." (See: FM 41-10, pgs. 2-30 thru
2-31, Section 251. Public Finance).

This of course complies with "Silent Weapons For Quiet Wars", Research
Technical Manual TM-SW7905.1, which discloses a declaration of war
upon the American people (See: pg. 3 & 7), monetary control by the
Internationalist, through information etc. solicited and collected by
the Internal Revenue Service (See TM-SW7905.1, pg. 48, also see, 22
U.S.C.A. 286f & Executive Order No. 10033, 26 U.S.C.A. 6103(k)(4)) and
who is operating and enforcing the seditious International program.
(See:TM-SW7905.1, pg. 52).

The 1985 Edition of the Department Of Army Field Manual, FM 41-10
further describes the International "Civil Affairs" operations. At
page 3-6 it is admitted that the A.I.D. is autonomous and under
direction of the International Development Cooperation Agency, and at
page 3-8, that the operation is "paramilitary." The International
Organization(s) intents and purposes was to promote, implement and
Senate Report No. 93-549, pg. 186)

It appears from the documentary evidence that the Internal Revenue
Service Agents etc., are "Agents of a Foreign Principal" within the
meaning and intent of the "Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938."

They are directed and controlled by the corporate "Governor" of The
Fund" a/k/a "Secretary of Treasury" (See: Public Law 94-564, supra,
pg. 5942, U.S. Government Manual 1990/91, pgs. 480 & 481, 26 U.S.C.A.
7701(a)(11), Treasury Delegation Order No. 150-10), and the corporate
"Governor" of "The Bank" 22 U.S.C.A. 286 & 286a, acting as
"information-service employees 22 U.S.C.A. 611(c)(ii), and have
been and do now "solicit, collect, disburse or dispense contribution
(Tax - pecuniary contribution, Black's Law Dict. 5th ed.), loans,
money or other things of value for or in interest of such foreign
principal 22 U.S.C.A. 611(c)(iii), and they entered into agreements
with a Foreign Principal pursuant to Treasury Delegation Order No. 91
i.e. the "Agency For International Development." (See: 22 U.S.C.A.

The Internal Revenue Service is also an agency of the International
Criminal Police Organization, and solicits and collects information
for 150 foreign powers. (See: 22 U.S.C.A. 263a, The United States
Government Manual, 1990/91, pg. 385, see also, The Ron Paul Money
Book, pg. 250 - 251)

It should be further noted that Congress has appropriated, transfered,
and converted vast sums to Foreign Powers (See: 22 U.S.C.A. 262c(b),
and has entered into numerous Foreign Taxing Treaties (conventions)
(See: 22 U.S.C.A 285g, 22 U.S.C.A. 287j) and other Agreements, which
are solicited and collected pursuant to 26 I.R.C. 6103(k)(4). Along
with the other documentary evidence submitted herewith, this should
absolve any further doubt as to the true character of the party.

Such restrictions as "For the general welfare and common defense of
the United States" (See: Constitution (1787), Article I, Section 8,
Clause 1) apparently aren't applicable, and the fraudulent rehypoth-
ecated debt credit will be merely added to the insolvent nature of the
continual "emergency", and the reciprocal socio/economic repercussions
laid upon present and future generations.

Among other reasons for lack of authority to act, such as a Foreign
Agents Registration Statement, 22 U.S.C.A. 612 and 18 U.S.C.A. 219 &
951, military authority cannot be imposed into civil affairs. (See:
Department Of The Army Pamphlet 27100- 70, Military Law Review, Vol.

Sorry to see this site go.

I hope that what I have posted has helped, be strong and never lose your faith.

From: New Kid on the Block

Date: 29-Nov-97

Dear Friend, here is a list of questions after reading this archive/string.
You have dwarfted me with your wisdom, please excuse my ignorance. On
24OCT96 you state the W4 is a class 5 gift tax form. please site
refference. 26OCT96 12USC95(b) does this effect the USA as described in
Church of the Holy Trinity v. US 143U.S.457, 36L.Ed.226,12 S.Ct.511(1892)?
Also, where is the USA and its government, as described in the above
Supreme Court Case? 28OCT96 or: if not proceeded by a coma, "or" means
"and" please site refference. 28OCT96 Priviledged employment = individual.
please site refference 28OCT96 US National Central Bureau - This agency
does what? 8DEC96 If you are going to file a 1040 form write final above
your signature. What is the implication of the placement and word final?
19DEC96 the phrase "By Special Appearance", who's court are you in? Their's
or your's(under article 34 of the Magna Carta)? If your's why a special
appearance? 29DEC96 'Marriage licenses make the state a 3rd party...' I
have heard this several times, but have no refferences, cases or statutes
do you? 15JAN97 IRS service agreement with the AID. How does the money get
from the AID to the IMF? 3APR97 'The creature from jeckyl island' Author?
Publisher? and possiblity of getting this work? 15SEP97 NMF - what is a
non-masterfile, what does it contain? 22SEP97 Offshore trust, Nevada corp,
etc... Any ideas or suggestions? Why can't we just own, it like George
Gordon says, in our true character? 21OCT97 filing a 1040 return w/regard
to your non-resident employees. I am a member of AFRC formerly USAFR. Am I
a non-resident employee? Where would I send interrogatories? Have you
argued FRN's v Dollar, in that what they are trying to collect is a dollar,
not FRN's?

Please excuse my ignorance, just trying to catch up with you.


From: New Kid on the Block

Date: 29-Nov-97

Thanks for the recomendation John. I will attempt to obtain the Mission
Statement for my records. I have summised that since I am a non-resident
alien (I am employed by the AFRC, formerly USAFR and derive approximately
4800.00 frn's per annum between the once a month weekend and the two week
commitment.) a determination letter from the director would be appropriate.
Although I do earn some income, it is not a taxable amount due to the
standard deductions for my family. All other is compensation for my labor
exchanged strictly outside the US. Does anyone have a take on my status?
Since technically, I am liable to recall at the descretion of the

By the way, John, I sent a letter to my employer stating I incurred no
taxable income for 1996 and anticipated no income for 1997 and included
3402(n). They accepted this without qualm. ( I am not the first at my place
of workt to do this. There are approximately 4-500 working here)

Friend - I digested most of the archives and have a few questions. I will
post these for your clarification later.


From: Confused address)
Date: 28-Nov-97

After working with another patriot who had just received his IMF, AIMS
documents, Summary Record of Assessment, and Publication 6209 pursuant to
the Freedom of Information Act request suggested in this forum, we
discovered that the Activity codes provided in the 1994 Edition of Pub 6209
are not the same as those in the 1991 Edition of Pub 6209. The activity
codes listed in Chapter 12, Section .08 have been changed. The Activity
Codes related to the 1040 form now have the first digit of 5 and the
Excise--Form 720 now have the first digit of 0. It appears that the IRS has
corrected their error and the argument about fraudulent Activity Codes is
frivolous. Can anyone verify this? Does any one have a 1994 edition showing
the three digit Excise--Form 720 codes beginning with "5" as suggested in
this forum? Either my friend got an improperly printed 6209 or the codes
ARE changed and the argument is moot?



From: John in California

Date: 21-Nov-97

New Kid, Look up Fuller v. United States 615 F.supp 1954 pgs 1058-1062 You
can not be assed penalties if there is no assessment. Also refuse for cause
any Irs Notice, Stat reasons and notice them per Mission Statement Fed Reg.
Vol 39 NO 62 March 29 1974 Sec 1111.1. Get certified copy from DC archives.
This is an Irs requirement that they have to answer all question on the law
and provide you documents. Also send copy of Irs notices to your
congressman and to the Taxpayer Advocate, demand the help in getting your
problem resolved. Have you sent the IRS a letter requiring that they send
you a determination letter, per the manuel. you probaly will not get a
response but it is good evidence that you want to present to your
congressman and Taxpayer Advocate, that the Irs is violating you . Chech
out Karl Klienpaste web site he has laid
out his fight with the IRS.


From: New Kid on the Block

Date: 21-Nov-97

Friend, Thanks for taking the time to respond. I have downloaded this site
with the intent to make a hard copy and study it dilligently over the
upcoming holidays. Yesterday, I spoke with an IRS telephone 'agent' who
simply stated that a 0 tax liability was not evidenced by a schedule C. No
mention of the affidavit incorporated in the filling of the 1040. (signed
with specific rights reservations). I expected them to proceed as if it
didn't exist, and they have. I am now working out a strategy to defend,
with specific intent on having them return my withholding for the taxable
year in question. This is how I stubbled upon this site. A cursory reading
shows you to be very generous with your wisdom. Once again, thank you. I
will return when I've done my homework

Subject: Getting a job without a SS#
From: Franknshine
Date: 18-Nov-97

I sure hope there is someone out there who has gone through the drill of
getting a job without a social security number. I am attempting to go
through the procedure and 1'd sure like to hear from someone with some
experience so I'll know what to expect.

I am already working for the company as a consultant. I'm currently on a
1099 through an agency that rents me to the company. They have offered me a
permanent position that I would like to accept.

I've done a lot of homework, and have the neccessary paperwork, i.e.,
affidavit of U.S. citizenship with the proper IRS code cite that relieves
the employer of the burden of withholding, evidence and cites that Social
Security is voluntary, along with some recent case history.

This company has told me that I can remain as a consultant, however, I miss
out on a lot of benefits this way.

I would like to hear from others who have done this, or opinions from those
with knowledge. If the odds are against success, I'd rather just stay on as
a consultant. An unsuccessful attempt like this could end my contract.

Any input from my patriot friends???

Thanks, Franknshine


From: Friend
Date: 18-Nov-97

New Kid
The FOIA people will not generally answer interrogatories (questions). They
only go and fetch stuff if you know what and were it is, I suggest that you
go back and read all of the postings at this site, perhaps you will find
what you are looking for


From: New kid on the block

Date: 18-Nov-97

John in California - I am new to the site and the string. Good
converstation. After approximately 2 years of home work, I felt comfortable
enough with my knowledge to announce to the IRS I owed no tax because I had
no liability. (Pursuant to the IR code and several other court decisions) I
sent in a Irwin Schift style zero return for 1996. The franchise tax board
for the State of California prompty returned my witholding while the IRS
sent me notice "We changed your return - you owe a tax" (double my
witholding) Now I have to fight

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]