A new SFBFKADMVP victim

[Nikki]

It looks like there's actually a SooeyHead dumb enough to fall for David Merrill's insane theory regarding 'lawful money' and the income tax. I sincerely hope that he follows up his announcement with details of how well it worked.

Re: Redeemed for lawful money pursuant to 12 USC 411

Back on topic, again...

The IRS just accepted my income tax check for my 2009 return. I declared wages for 9 months out of the year and send them copies of redeemed pay checks for the other 3 months. I only regret not adding a stipulation to the check that cashing it acknowledged the return was correct w/o recourse to bring this all to permanent closure.

Take my psedonymous internet testimony for what it's worth.

I have to say, to everyone on this forum and who participated in this and numerous other threads,

THANK YOU! I'm especially grateful for our sage pioneer, David Merrill who helped bring the remedy to light for us and the rest of the internets!

[Pottapaug1938]

It looks like there's actually a SooeyHead dumb enough to fall for David Merrill's insane theory regarding 'lawful money' and the income tax.

Weeds grow wherever there is fertile soil....

[bmielke]

I already know how this is going to end. The guy is going to get hit hard with interest and penalities, and then David is going to say if you only did...

I only regret not adding a stipulation to the check that cashing it acknowledged the return was correct w/o recourse to bring this all to permanent closure.

Whatever this gibberish means, then you wouldn't be in this position.

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

It looks like there's actually a SooeyHead dumb enough to fall for David Merrill's insane theory regarding 'lawful money' and the income tax.

Weeds grow wherever there is fertile soil....

And if you don't already know what makes soil especially fertile just ask this guy:

[Pottapaug1938]

I already know how this is going to end. The guy is going to get hit hard with interest and penalities, and then David is going to say if you only did...

I only regret not adding a stipulation to the check that cashing it acknowledged the return was correct w/o recourse to bring this all to permanent closure.

Whatever this gibberish means, then you wouldn't be in this position.

What this buffoon is trying to say is that, by cashing the check, the IRS is admitting that this tax return is correct, and that it has no legal recourse against the maker of the check should that not prove true. Of course, that will have the same ability to stop the IRS from going after him as a sheet of aluminum foil would have, stretched across an Interstate highway, trying to stop a trucker who is running late and has a deadline to meet.

[bmielke]

What this buffoon is trying to say is that, by cashing the check, the IRS is admitting that this tax return is correct, and that it has no legal recourse against the maker of the check should that not prove true. Of course, that will have the same ability to stop the IRS from going after him as a sheet of aluminum foil would have, stretched across an Interstate highway, trying to stop a trucker who is running late and has a deadline to meet.

I figured that's what he was going for, I also knew it would have no effect, other then the IRS not cashing the check if they caught it.

[grixit]

I once had someone tell me that if you give a creditor a check for any amount, and write on it "Payment in Full", and they deposit it, then you no longer owe the rest of the debt.

[Famspear]

I once had someone tell me that if you give a creditor a check for any amount, and write on it "Payment in Full", and they deposit it, then you no longer owe the rest of the debt.

Unfortunately, under the Internal Revenue Code, the Internal Revenue Service is not bound by such tactics with respect to federal tax payments. Under the case law, for compromising a federal internal revenue tax, I believe you have to follow 26 USC 7122.

[Famspear]

And in Texas, it does not, as a general rule, work for Texas taxes either:

§ 31.073. RESTRICTED OR CONDITIONAL PAYMENTS PROHIBITED. A restriction or condition placed on a check in payment of taxes, penalties, or interest by the maker that limits the amount of taxes, penalties, or interest owed to an amount less than that stated in the tax bill or shown by the tax collector's records is void unless the restriction or condition is authorized by this code.

--Tex. Tax Code sec. 31.073

[bmielke]

I once had someone tell me that if you give a creditor a check for any amount, and write on it "Payment in Full", and they deposit it, then you no longer owe the rest of the debt.

I have heard that as well, but I don't think it applies any longer. It is called an accord in satisfaction (I think) and there must be an accord before you do that. Plus many creditors will not cash the check if your write that on it.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I once had someone tell me that if you give a creditor a check for any amount, and write on it "Payment in Full", and they deposit it, then you no longer owe the rest of the debt.

Not for a long time.

[fortinbras]

Very specifically, the "payment in full" gimmick, which is or was at one time set out in the Uniform Commercial Code, is inapplicable to payments to the IRS, which are governed entirely by federal law, and there is at least once court decision to that effect.

[Famspear]

Very specifically, the "payment in full" gimmick, which is or was at one time set out in the Uniform Commercial Code, is inapplicable to payments to the IRS, which are governed entirely by federal law, and there is at least once court decision to that effect.

And here are citations to a couple of the court cases.

Bowling v. United States, 510 F.2d 112 (5th Cir. 1975).

Laurins v. Commissioner, 889 F.2d 910 (9th Cir. 1989).

[LPC]

Very specifically, the "payment in full" gimmick, which is or was at one time set out in the Uniform Commercial Code, is inapplicable to payments to the IRS, which are governed entirely by federal law, and there is at least once court decision to that effect.

And here are citations to a couple of the court cases.

Bowling v. United States, 510 F.2d 112 (5th Cir. 1975).

Laurins v. Commissioner, 889 F.2d 910 (9th Cir. 1989).

You guys are such a buzz-kill.

[The Observer]

You guys are such a buzz-kill.

This might be the first time that you and the Crackheads agree on something.

[Cathulhu]

The Internal Revenue Manual tells the IRS personnel that they have to send the check for payment, and if it bounces the first time, it's not IRS but the Federal Reserve Bank that will resubmit the check one more time (and the bad check penalty can be assessed twice on the same check). The check processing personnel aren't nearly so worried about such idiocy as the statement as whether they correctly credit accounts with pending payments and meet their own productivity goals. The fact IRS cashed his check is without legal meaning, regardless of what crap he puts on it.

I've seen the IRS reject a check exactly twice; some clown used a wooden hollow-core door as the check body to make a giant check out, and the Revenue Officer tried to cash it but the bank rejected it because they had no desire to store it in their records archive, and I recall the Revenue Officer actually (having a sense of humor) gave the clown a chance to give him a real check, because otherwise he'd have been procedurally correct to charge the bad check penalty.

The other was a substantial check that was rejected in an IRS embassy office because the TP made it out to a taxing authority in yet a third country, neither the USA or the tax authority of the host country, and the agent in charge very politely requested they give IRS a check made out to Internal Revenue Service, please?

And, yup, in both cases IRS secured full payment.

This guy has done gone and moved into the fantasyland castle in the air. Soon he'll be shocked to find himself paying rent on it.

[Doktor Avalanche]

And if you don't already know what makes soil especially fertile just ask this guy:

Mmmm....steak on the hoof!