Trying to Explain the Fallacy of A4V To Someone.

[Hyrion]

Maybe reading comprehension has failed you

I do quite fine with Reading comprehension thank you. That's also true with verbal comprehension. It's quite important for my job given I'm involved in translating from one language to another on a daily basis.

One of the most important factors is with regards avoiding forming an opinion when there's insufficient information available to do so - it helps to avoid all manner of misunderstandings that were created due to presumptions:

he speaks sov gibberish

Maybe, maybe not. We haven't actually seen/heard anything by him, only JennyD - and only to the extent he's considering A4V. So while there may be a high likelihood (or not) that such a presumption is correct - it is still only a presumption.

Clearly I meant to have someone who can speak his gibberish, aka sov

Actually, it was not clear. I could have presumed that's what you meant. Perhaps if you would focus on what you "clearly meant to say". If you did so, instead of presuming your audience would understand, communications would likely be easier and far less stressful.

As example:

have someone who can speak his gibberish, aka sov

No... I don't think it would be any better an idea to have you speak to him then someone into A4V.

How's that for the reading comprehension you wanted from me? To presume from what you wrote something you didn't actually write. To presume from what you wrote something you didn't necessarily mean to say. See how that can be a bad idea? Presuming you're a Sov and that you're suggesting he talk to you?

Of course, the presumption could be correct but only you can really identify whether or not it is. And no, I'm not interested in you clarifying whether you:

speak ... gibberish ... sov

The only reason I drew the presumptions is to show how very bad they are and why one should avoid them. I withdraw the statement you're a Sov and suggested you speak with him.

[NYGman]

Maybe reading comprehension has failed you, he speaks sov gibberish. Clearly I meant to have someone who can speak his gibberish, aka sov but someone who knows a4v has no merits.

So are you volunteering?

[JamesVincent]

[LPC]

I don't think I need to tell you the % of people who look at how their beliefs were formed.

Once again, the irony is going to go "whoosh" over someone's head.

As if asking questions indicated beliefs in a subject, your batting 1000 there slugger.

If you believe that you've only been "asking questions," then you're delusional.

It might shock you to know that you can't spit in my face and tell me it's raining.

[grixit]

Our blind squirrel has finally found a nut:

I more then [sic] likely don't know what I'm talking about.

Had to happen eventually, his grammatical challenges notwithstanding. And not just more than likely. To a certainty. Demonstrated across a broad range of topics from tax law to psychology.

Bravo, PD, bravo. You are the single best troll/nincompoop we've seen in the last year or so.

Just to keep things clear, the term "troll/nincompoop" is considered a slur. The proper term is "troll-nincompoop" or alternatively "trollpoop".

[littleFred]

I would make a couple of points.

1. "If someone offered to pay you in A4Vs and/or promissory notes, would you accept them?" This argument should be persuasive. Sadly, it is countered with, "Ah, but I don't have to accept them. By contrast, the tax man is obliged to accept them because ..." Then comes some spurious legal argument.

2. Some cases of people spouting SovCit nonsense and then becoming out of debt are doubtless true. If a person gives a true and accurate reason for the debt to be released, and also gives reams of nonsense, he may attribute the debt release to the nonsense instead of the correct reason. He is then lauded in SovCit circles as a hero who has discovered the holy grail.

3. People shout about their successes but don't even whisper about subsequent failures. Many "success" stories merely delay the day of judgement.

[wserra]

I would make a couple of points.

1. . .
2. . .
3. . .

4. They lie.

[fortinbras]

With reference to "point #1" about "the tax man MUST accept it", the law is Very Clear on that:

26 USCode § 6311. Payment of tax by commercially acceptable means.

(a) Authority to receive. It shall be lawful for the Secretary to receive for internal revenue taxes (or in payment for internal revenue stamps) any commercially acceptable means that the Secretary deems appropriate to the extent and under the conditions provided in regulations prescribed by the Secretary.

(b) Ultimate liability. If a check, money order, or other method of payment, including payment by credit card, debit card, or charge card so received is not duly paid, or is paid and subsequently charged back to the Secretary, the person by whom such check, or money order, or other method of payment has been tendered shall remain liable for the payment of the tax or for the stamps, and for all legal penalties and additions, to the same extent as if such check, money order, or other method of payment had not been tendered.

So, no, the tax man doesn't have to accept stuff that others reject; in fact, the tax man doesn't have to accept some forms of payment that some others might accept. There's already case law rejecting promissory notes even with fancy titles as a form of tax payment.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... 3299092249
And A4V doesn't even pretend to be a form of payment.

[JennyD]

Well thanks everyone, even though I pointed out the legal ramifications of this, and the pure stupidity of it all to this friend of mine, he just sent the IRS an envelope with his 10 years of non paid taxes due, marked A4V.

I will make sure to go to his trial........ some people just don't wanna hear the truth I guess....

[LightinDarkness]

JennyD,I think the most annoying part about this for you is going to be waiting for the IRS to respond and charge him. As you know that could take years - and depending on the amount of money involved, it may never occur at all.

In my experience the people delusional enough to A4V their taxes show the same behavior patterns with this. First they A4V their taxes by claiming invalid deductions to get big refunds. That appears to be where your friend is at, correct? Second, he will actually get a check - because the refund process is mostly automated so its very unlikely someone will look at it. At that point he will declare victory, tell you that you were wrong, and spend his ill-gotten gains. Third, we sit back and wait for the IRS to demand its money back. Depending on the amount of illegal money he got back, you could be waiting years. And if he A4Vs a really small amount (I'm not sure what it would be, but I'd say <$5k) it may not happen at all as the IRS has bigger fish to fry. In the mean time you have to sit back and watch him gloat and spread his A4V "success" to other delusional people.

When and if the charges come, he will of course claim it had nothing to do with the A4V being invalid as he got a refund. It will all be blamed on corrupt IRS officials and the court system who clearly do not understand his magnificent legal genius paperwork. He will NEVER admit to being wrong unless he faces some serious penalties, at which point a few of these people throw themselves on the mercy of the court to try to get the penalties reduced.

I'm sure you know all this, but I'm just typing it out for anyone else who may not know.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Well thanks everyone, even though I pointed out the legal ramifications of this, and the pure stupidity of it all to this friend of mine, he just sent the IRS an envelope with his 10 years of non paid taxes due, marked A4V.

I will make sure to go to his trial........ some people just don't wanna hear the truth I guess....

It seems like folks do not understand how beliefs work... Strange.

[.]

Not strange at all, virtually everyone here understands perfectly well how beliefs work.

That is, they work entirely differently depending upon whether you are delusionally single-minded about something, say, some totally misunderstood facet of taxation or the law, or not.

I won't even try to engage you in the years-long-running discussion here about to what extent various TPs may or may not suffer from one form or another of mental illness. As far as I know, none of us are psychiatrists or psychologists, but we have all observed in great detail delusional TP behavior and beliefs for many years. Irwin Schiff, 3-time convicted tax felon, in a rare moment of honesty alluded to as much. It's obvious that you aren't competent to discuss the delusions of TPs or much of anything else.

You've made over 300 posts here that collectively don't amount to a pimple on a delusional elephant's butt, although I do sort of envision you as a pimple on the butt of Quatloos.

Be careful, or the moderators might pop you.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Not strange at all, virtually everyone here understands perfectly well how beliefs work.

That is, they work entirely differently depending upon whether you are delusionally single-minded about something, say, some totally misunderstood facet of taxation or the law, or not.

I won't even try to engage you in the years-long-running discussion here about to what extent various TPs may or may not suffer from one form or another of mental illness. As far as I know, none of us are psychiatrists or psychologists, but we have all observed in great detail delusional TP behavior and beliefs for many years. Irwin Schiff, 3-time convicted tax felon, in a rare moment of honesty alluded to as much. It's obvious that you aren't competent to discuss the delusions of TPs or much of anything else.

You've made over 300 posts here that collectively don't amount to a pimple on a delusional elephant's butt, although I do sort of envision you as a pimple on the butt of Quatloos.

Be careful, or the moderators might pop you.

Sure they do, I could tell because Jenny got thru to her friend based on your guys great advice.

[notorial dissent]

There is a great deal of talk about the difficulty of getting something across the blood-brain barrier. I submit that the stupid barrier is far more impenetrable. Case in point.

[LPC]

Well thanks everyone, even though I pointed out the legal ramifications of this, and the pure stupidity of it all to this friend of mine, he just sent the IRS an envelope with his 10 years of non paid taxes due, marked A4V.

By "10 years of non paid taxes due," I assume that you mean some sort of demand for payment by the IRS, based either on returns that were recently filed or notices of deficiencies that were recently issued.

Others who know more about IRS procedures can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that what will happen next will be the following:

As far as I know, the IRS has no way of coding when its own notices are returned marked "accepted for value," so the returned notices will probably be treated as correspondence. So, at some point your friend will get another notice letting him know that the IRS has received his correspondence and your friend will hear from them in some time period.

At that point, your friend will declare victory.

Later, someone with some authority will look at the returned notices, decide that "accepted for value" is meaningless, and will initiate collection processes.

Then, your friend will receive notices of intent to levy or notices of intent to file a notice of federal tax lien, or both, depending on what kind of income or assets the IRS thinks he might have.

Your friend will then return the notices to the IRS marked "accepted for value."

Once again, the returned notices will either be treated as correspondence and eventually disregarded, or disregarded immediately.

After the required amount of time has passed, or perhaps after that, the IRS will issues notices of levy to your friend's employer, bank, and anyone else that the IRS thinks might owe your friend money or be in possession of his assets.

What happens after that depends on your friend, but if he keeps on returning IRS paperwork marked "accepted for value," the IRS will continue to disregard it, and will continue with collection actions. And, the longer he continues with this nonsense, the bigger the hole he's digging will be because he will have lost opportunities for procedural remedies like collection due process hearings and installment payment plans.

Eventually, he might decide to consult a lawyer or CPA, but by then it might be too late.

[The Observer]

ers who know more about IRS procedures can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that what will happen next will be the following:

That is pretty much the song and dance, although I wonder whether enough of the "Return For Cause" correspondence may push an IRS employee over the edge and they assess a frivpen penalty.