CtC user warns against using forms that put you in prison

[Famspear]

Losthorizons user "justinprime" started a thread on the possibility of using Form 8275, Disclosure Statement, or the related Form 8275-R. Justinprime can't figure out how these two forms are supposed to be used, in part because he doesn't understand that a "regulation" (i.e., a Treasury regulation) and an "IRS revenue ruling" are two completely different things.

But the funny part is where user "hughg" comes back with this little jewel:

I believe Wesley Snipes used an 8275. He's in prison.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2728

To which my response is: Peter E. ("Blowhard") Hendrickson used his own Cracking the Code 'non-method' tax scam method. He's in prison."

[LOBO]

GK asked the following from the LostHeads on January 31:

Folks, I am actively fighting the IRS on several key points. I need to make sure my understanding is complete. Here is what I need to discuss and clarify:


1) One cannot prove a negative. There are some court cases from the SCOTUS that contain that. I said I did not make wages. To whom does the burden of responsibility belong? Do I need to prove I didn't, or do they need to prove I did?

2) The IRS is not the issuer of the W2. To them, it is third-party evidence. The fact that they disregard my testimony seems to be a violation of 6702 (I am unsure if this is the right section), where the law says that the Secretary MUST favor my evidence over any other. Considering the IRS has third-party evidence, and I provided first-hand intimate knowledge of the situation, is there anything further I need to do? Or in fact can do?


1) One cannot prove a negative. There are some court cases from the SCOTUS that contain that. I said I did not make wages. To whom does the burden of responsibility belong? Do I need to prove I didn't, or do they need to prove I did?

2) The IRS is not the issuer of the W2. To them, it is third-party evidence. The fact that they disregard my testimony seems to be a violation of 6702 (I am unsure if this is the right section), where the law says that the Secretary MUST favor my evidence over any other. Considering the IRS has third-party evidence, and I provided first-hand intimate knowledge of the situation, is there anything further I need to do? Or in fact can do?

3) What other evidence could the IRS possibly possess to buttress the W2?

I'll start there and refine my questions as these get answered.

The only reply came on Feb. 2. From GK:

Anyone? Anyone?

Beuller?

[Quixote]

I'm surprised the usual suspects have not answered GK's questions.

[Pottapaug1938]

I'm surprised the usual suspects have not answered GK's questions.

I think that the usual suspects have fled the reservation due to a growing, nagging sense that the Eminent Legal Scholar, Pete the Blowhard, has misled them all, and that he is NEVER returning from prison, vindicated and in all his glory, despite their fondest wishes that he do so. The handful (count 'em on your fingers) who still remain behind are doubling down on their beliefs (it's all they have); but they are probably too scared to speak up.

STAND SMALL, WORRIERS!

[Quixote]

I'm surprised the usual suspects have not answered GK's questions.

Oops. I just skimmed the thread "A reintroduction and request for aid in battle." started by GK on essentially the same topic. Plenty of responses.

[ashlynne39]

I'm surprised the usual suspects have not answered GK's questions.

Oops. I just skimmed the thread "A reintroduction and request for aid in battle." started by GK on essentially the same topic. Plenty of responses.

Yes but mostly nonsense . . . as usual

[LOBO]

He finally got a reply.

Your understandings seem dead on to me. Now the issue is the IRS realizing that and following the rules/laws. While it's not your job to convince them, many people have done so and been successful as seen in the Victories and EWWBL pages.

until they later got sued for erroneous refunds, got audited and had their returns corrected, got $5,000 civil penalties, got their wages and bank accounts liened and levied, got struck down when they went to court.....wait, he didn't mention the last part.

[LOBO]

Got a chuckle out of this bit in the other thread...

3rd: Imho, the "responsible-person" findings/holdings of the Courts are key to attacking/mooting/refuting auntie's "its-frivolous" rejection policy ... To understand this better, you'll need to retrace my footsteps; study the following, in that order:
1) The term "Person", IRC 7701(a)(1) vs. IRC 6671(b): http://www.box.net/shared/kjglhem1vc
2) Derivation of "Person" in IRC 6671(b) and IRC 7343 http://www.box.net/shared/d8d0n6n1b6
3) USDC and USSC Precedents for "Responsible Person": http://www.box.net/shared/acm77i6khj
4) Courts' Standard of Review of "Responsible Person": http://www.box.net/shared/1k4r6tb1h9
5) Pre- and Co-Requisites for Frivolous Returns/Submissions http://www.box.net/shared/35fs5ex4ah
Lastly, 6) Post-exam event chart: http://www.box.net/shared/bcetvvv8s8

Now, are YOU that "responsible person"?

No TranscriptsDontLie, there aren't a whole lot of responsible people on the LostHeads board.

Also...

2nd: many folks are watching this forum, and so do auntie's trolls. Don't look for "silver bullets" (they don't exist)

Oh, there are silver bullets. They are shot into the barrell called "Cacking the Code"

e: screw it, the misspelling sounds funny.

[Famspear]

User "justinprime" at losthorizons writes:

TDL - If you look at my quotes in the original post, you can see the misleading directions of the 8275. It seems like a set-up to me. LH is filled with victories and I have never once seen an 8275 being used. I have, however, seen numerous cover letters and non-IRS documents being submitted to the IRS. There's a history of victories there. It doesn't make sense to me to deviate at this point.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 6666#26666

In other words, the fact that you conned the IRS into sending you an erroneous refund is a "victory" for the CtC "non-method" method, and proves that CtC is "really the law?" And the fact that the Internal Revenue Service began all the subsequent actions against you, such as imposing frivolous penalties, levying on assets, and so on, just proves how evil and bad the IRS is -- in other words, that there is no "silver bullet"?

There is always going to be people advocating for the use of different forms or some silver bullet. Until the day comes where those are proven successful, I'll stick with what has been shown to get the job done. (Not saying the 8275 is not useful, but based on the history of CtC filings...)

In other words, "getting the job done" means nothing more than obtaining your erroneous refund, and all the bad stuff that follows is... what?

If we continue down the path of trying to find the right form, the right words, we become entangled in their web, in their game. My plan is to keep it simple, keep the ball in their court with minimal "arguments" from my side and consistently deferring back to them to explain and support their allegations. My plan is to build a court case and keep my foundation strong, with minimal input on my side besides the basic necessities.

And what's your plan once you get into court? Everyone, including Hendrickson himself, has lost in court. How are you expecting to WIN in court?

And user "GK" writes:

Forms are irrelevant. Law is irrelevant. Argument is irrelevant.

That's a novel approach. GK continues:

All that remains is the following:

Were you engaged in a revenue taxable activity?

Do you have proof?

Does the IRS care? Answer: No.

If not, then return monies withheld against potential liability, as none was incurred.

And how are you going to get the IRS to change its mind and agree with you that the existence of a "revenue taxable activity" is required? How are you going to get a federal judge to rule in your favor if you end up in court?

What a hopeless, clueless group of losers.....

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
And how are you going to get the IRS to change its mind and agree with you that the existence of a "revenue taxable activity" is required? How are you going to get a federal judge to rule in your favor if you end up in court? ...

They're not - but they can't appear to care.

What matters is that sweet moment of "victory" where you open that envelope with the refund check in it and begin weeks, months or even years of self-congratulatory pontificating to encourage others to join in, all the while concealing the trepidation and fear that you'll be caught.

Compartmentalization is a fundamental part of the criminal mindset, but when the hammer finally falls, denial is the ego's only refuge.