CtC "Warriors" Penalized?

[John J. Bulten]

No, the overpayment portion becomes payments, too. Otherwise, there would be no overpayment, just payments equal to the assessment and unapplied cash bonds.

Please cut to the chase: how does one properly, lawfully, and efficiently get back the unapplied cash bonds or the overpayments?

As fascinating as this subject is, it has nothing to do with CTC returns, because no CTC filer has entered into a withholding agreement of any kind.

Please cut to the chase: why is it not a withholding agreement of any kind when one agrees, as a work condition, that part of one's pay will be withheld (ostensibly for diversion to the IRS)?

[notorial dissent]

John, I am curious as to what the foregoing blather has to do with your CTC boneheads getting gobsmacked by reality when your silly collection of nonsense inevitbably blows up in their faces?

And while I enjoy watching you twist in the wind and prevaricate when you get caught in yet another misstatement, half truth or out and out lie, as the next person, this is getting boring.

In the first place, I have a hard time believing that a 70 year old case has much to do with anything we are currently discussing here. Secondly, since most, if now all of your bone heads have difficulty coming up with the withholding they owe, I find it not only inconceivable, but flat out laughable that they could or would voluntarily hand over money that they had as possible withholding. in other words, John, this is a crock, and yet another of your red herrings for when you get caught and can’t come up with a good lie to bail yourself out, you change the subject.

While I am aware that anything having to do with CTC is the purest of fiction, this has moved into the realm of fantasy. Quite frankly, the thought of a CTCer actually making any kind of an overpayment voluntary or otherwise, is the biggest giggle you have provided me in a very long time, and I laugh at you a lot.

Please either stick to the topic at hand or go back to censuring those who disagree with you over at LH.

[Florida]

John, I am curious as to what the foregoing blather has to do with your CTC boneheads getting gobsmacked by reality when your silly collection of nonsense inevitbably blows up in their faces?

And while I enjoy watching you twist in the wind and prevaricate when you get caught in yet another misstatement, half truth or out and out lie, as the next person, this is getting boring.

In the first place, I have a hard time believing that a 70 year old case has much to do with anything we are currently discussing here. Secondly, since most, if now all of your bone heads have difficulty coming up with the withholding they owe, I find it not only inconceivable, but flat out laughable that they could or would voluntarily hand over money that they had as possible withholding. in other words, John, this is a crock, and yet another of your red herrings for when you get caught and can’t come up with a good lie to bail yourself out, you change the subject.

While I am aware that anything having to do with CTC is the purest of fiction, this has moved into the realm of fantasy. Quite frankly, the thought of a CTCer actually making any kind of an overpayment voluntary or otherwise, is the biggest giggle you have provided me in a very long time, and I laugh at you a lot.

Please either stick to the topic at hand or go back to censuring those who disagree with you over at LH.

Johnnie JJ Bulten isn't exactly operating on all thrusters, if you know what I mean.

[Quixote]

No, the overpayment portion becomes payments, too. Otherwise, there would be no overpayment, just payments equal to the assessment and unapplied cash bonds.

Please cut to the chase: how does one properly, lawfully, and efficiently get back the unapplied cash bonds or the overpayments?

As fascinating as this subject is, it has nothing to do with CTC returns, because no CTC filer has entered into a withholding agreement of any kind.

Please cut to the chase: why is it not a withholding agreement of any kind when one agrees, as a work condition, that part of one's pay will be withheld (ostensibly for diversion to the IRS)?

You're assuming facts not in evidence, JB. Moreover, your new facts are at odds with what we know to be true. The sole purpose of a CTC filer in completing a Form 4852 is to "rebut" the information filed by a payor on a Form W-2. The payor is obviously of the opinion that he is an employer and the payee, an employee. If an employer/employee relationship existed, employment tax withholding was required by law. Agreement to withholding could not be a work condition because it was not in the worker's power to disagree.

[notorial dissent]

Johnnie JJ Bulten isn't exactly operating on all thrusters, if you know what I mean.

Oh say it ain’t so?

[Florida]

Johnnie JJ Bulten isn't exactly operating on all thrusters, if you know what I mean.

Oh say it ain’t so?

He strikes me as your typical Willy Lunchmeat who goes to his tax protestor seminar with a neat and tidy S&K suit and a pair of heelys.

[Florida]

I'm guessing not. JJB strikes me as Mr. Maximum Uptight, so wrapped up in his "cause" that all humor and fun has fled his body.

A fun loving kid will wear wheelies with a suit. JJB? None of those things, so no wheelies.

I forgot to mention that he wears the heelys because it saves money on gas, not to be fun or humorous. So he has a serious look on his mug while he skates to work.

[Famspear]

There was a protester named Bulten
Who thought Fed'ral tax was revoltin' --
So he swallowed the plan
From that Hendrickson man,
Whose delusions are now slowly moldin'.

[John J. Bulten]

No, the overpayment portion becomes payments, too. Otherwise, there would be no overpayment, just payments equal to the assessment and unapplied cash bonds.

Please cut to the chase: how does one properly, lawfully, and efficiently get back the unapplied cash bonds or the overpayments? ... Why is it not a withholding agreement of any kind when one agrees, as a work condition, that part of one's pay will be withheld (ostensibly for diversion to the IRS)?

You're assuming facts not in evidence, JB. Moreover, your new facts are at odds with what we know to be true.

Q, my first question responded to your hypothetical ("if"). In your hypothetical, how does one properly, lawfully, and efficiently get back the unapplied cash bonds or the overpayments? (My answer: demand a refund.)

My second question was my own hypothetical ("when"), but I neglected to limit it to nonwage payments only. Why would it not be a withholding agreement of any kind when (or if) one agrees, as a work condition, that part of one's nonwage pay will be withheld (ostensibly for diversion to the IRS)? (My answer: it's an agreement.)

After dodging both questions by somehow relating hypothetical questions to "facts not in evidence", you switch tracks again by dealing only with the case where "an employer/employee relationship existed" (which BTW is not much different from assuming such relationship exists as a fact not in evidence). So the third question is: if an employer/employee relationship does not exist between a withholding workplace payor and a worker payee, what would make withholding mandatory or exclude it from the worker's power to disagree? (My answer: it's voluntary.)

Now, Notorial, my perception has been that so far on this thread: I demonstrated the validity of Pete's statement that only one party had money involuntarily taken due to CtC filing, and Lawman refused to back up his generic claims to the contrary with even the barest factual detail. Then I demonstrated CtC returns are neither incomplete nor contradictory as described in 6702(a)(1)(A)-(B), which proves conclusively that they are not frivolous returns without any reference to 6702(a)(2)(A); no one disputed me other than by trying to reopen (2)(A), thereby validating my conclusion as to (1)(A)-(B). Then I demonstrated that Brian made a goof by misreading 3402(p)(1) as if it were the whole of 3402(p), which no one disputed. With Quixote, I've been getting mixed results, but primarily because he (characteristically) refuses to answer questions straight. So what was it that you wanted to demonstrate as a prevarication, misstatement, half-truth or lie? Every one of our hundreds of victories is the return of money voluntarily handed over as withholding in the confidence that any overpayment portion of it would be timely refunded, just as most all Americans believe about their withholding.

Perhaps you have some counsel I could offer people other than "uphold the law"? Or perhaps you can be the first to show why espousing CtC would not be upholding the law (after it has been ruled three times as unsanctionable)?

[Famspear]

John Bulten wrote:

Perhaps you have some counsel I could offer people other than "uphold the law"? Or perhaps you can be the first to show why espousing CtC would not be upholding the law (after it has been ruled three times as unsanctionable)?

Espousing the frivolous arguments found in "Cracking the Code" has been "ruled" "unsanctionable"? Three times? Where? In Bizarro Bulten World, of course!

Espousing the nonsense in "Cracking the Code" is somehow "upholding" the "law" -- in Bizarro Bulten World!

[Famspear]

Dear John:

Clue: Issuance of a tax refund by the Internal Revenue Service does not constitute a "ruling" on anything by the Internal Revenue Service -- not in the sense in which you are thinking. Issuance of a tax refund based on a return filed under the "Cracking the Code" theory is called a "mistake" -- an erroneous refund.

Oh, I'm sorry - has someone already explained this to you?

I'm just curious about something. Is there a teeny tiny corner of the conscious part of your brain somewhere that is not in denial, a corner of your consciousness that is feverishly trying to figure out how you are going to back yourself out feet first out of this rabbit hole in which you have stuck yourself?

It may not be too late, John. Think about it.

[Quixote]

Q, my first question responded to your hypothetical ("if"). In your hypothetical, how does one properly, lawfully, and efficiently get back the unapplied cash bonds or the overpayments? (My answer: demand a refund.)

But my hypothetical, as you call it, contained the answer to that question (claim the payments as estimated tax payments). I naturally assumed you must have meant something else.

My second question was my own hypothetical ("when"), but I neglected to limit it to nonwage payments only. Why would it not be a withholding agreement of any kind when (or if) one agrees, as a work condition, that part of one's nonwage pay will be withheld (ostensibly for diversion to the IRS)? (My answer: it's an agreement.)

Your statement did not set up a hypothetical situation. It was in direct response to my statement that CTC filers have not entered into withholding agreements. Anyone can check that by looking at the previous posts.

...you switch tracks again by dealing only with the case where "an employer/employee relationship existed"

No, I stayed the track I started on, CTC returns. All CTC filers work for someone who thinks he is the CTC filer's employer. He is, therefore, working within the context of a perceived employer/employee relationship. He would, therefore, have no reason to require his employee to agree to tax withholding as a condition of employment. From the payor's perspective, the employee cannot disagree with withholding, so an agreement would be moot. It would make more sense to make breathing a condition of employment. That is something over which the employee has a choice.

So the third question is: if an employer/employee relationship does not exist between a withholding workplace payor and a worker payee, what would make withholding mandatory or exclude it from the worker's power to disagree?

Nothing, assuming the original agreement under which the payor became a withholding workplace payor allowed for modification.

Then I demonstrated CtC returns are neither incomplete nor contradictory ...

No you didn't. They are contradictory, as I have already established. CTC filers claim to have received no wages, but to have had income tax withheld from their wages. None of your blather about, as you now admit, purely hypothetical voluntary withholding agreements addresses that contradiction.

With Quixote, I've been getting mixed results, but primarily because he (characteristically) refuses to answer questions straight.

All my answers are perfectly straight. I occassionally erred by assuming you intended to ask a relevant question. Concentrate on getting a handle on reality. Leave the hypothetical questions alone.

Or perhaps you can be the first to show why espousing CtC would not be upholding the law (after it has been ruled three times as unsanctionable)?

Too late for that. PH lost his erroneous refund case because the DOJ showed the judge why espousing CtC would not be upholding the law. Maybe you could do what PH has yet to do, justify CTC as something other than a tax evasion scheme.

[Joe Dirt]

Too late for that. PH lost his erroneous refund case because the DOJ showed the judge why espousing CtC would not be upholding the law. Maybe you could do what PH has yet to do, justify CTC as something other than a tax evasion scheme.

A rose by any other name...???

[Joe Dirt]

How's this for holding up the Law?

[notorial dissent]

Now, Notorial, my perception has been that so far on this thread: I demonstrated the validity of Pete's statement that only one party had money involuntarily taken due to CtC filing, and Lawman refused to back up his generic claims to the contrary with even the barest factual detail. Then I demonstrated CtC returns are neither incomplete nor contradictory as described in 6702(a)(1)(A)-(B), which proves conclusively that they are not frivolous returns without any reference to 6702(a)(2)(A); no one disputed me other than by trying to reopen (2)(A), thereby validating my conclusion as to (1)(A)-(B). Then I demonstrated that Brian made a goof by misreading 3402(p)(1) as if it were the whole of 3402(p), which no one disputed. With Quixote, I've been getting mixed results, but primarily because he (characteristically) refuses to answer questions straight. So what was it that you wanted to demonstrate as a prevarication, misstatement, half-truth or lie? Every one of our hundreds of victories is the return of money voluntarily handed over as withholding in the confidence that any overpayment portion of it would be timely refunded, just as most all Americans believe about their withholding.

Perhaps you have some counsel I could offer people other than "uphold the law"? Or perhaps you can be the first to show why espousing CtC would not be upholding the law (after it has been ruled three times as unsanctionable)?

My dearest BS, your perceptions and demonstration, like Pete’s theories are pure delusion. You have proven nothing, you posit a nonsense scenario where one of your bozos could possibly be earning enough money to need to do additional withholding while at the same time being an independent contractor, and then try and come up with an even more improbable situation where they could con the contractee into acting as their paymaster. Despite your twists and turns, this then turns into a statutory employer / employee situation and your whole string of nonsense falls apart, but then it was never together to begin with. However, in the unlikely possibility that any of your boneheads would actually overpay on their taxes, all they would need to do is “properly” file their return showing the amount of income received vs the amount of taxes paid/withheld, and file for a refund. You, however, already know this but are trying to twist it into some outlandish situation to suit your own needs, sorry, doesn’t wash, already been tried numerous times in court, lost then, will continue to lose. So, since nothing you have said to date on this subject is either true, correct, or even marginally realistic there is nothing to defend. You deliberately misconstrue, and flat ignore what the law says, and keep insisting it says something different despite being repeatedely shown to the contrary. Your hundreds of victories, my foot. To date, Pete and his coterie have lost every time they have gone to court, he most recently and biggest of all, so you have nothing to crow about there either. I’m sorry John, “ruled three times as unsanctionable” in what universe? Untenable maybe, unbelievable certainly, but “unsanctionable”, only in your dreams.

[natty]

So the third question is: if an employer/employee relationship does not exist between a withholding workplace payor and a worker payee, what would make withholding mandatory or exclude it from the worker's power to disagree? (My answer: it's voluntary.)

IOW, if A owes B $x, and A gives some of $x to B, and gives the rest of $x to C, B must have "voluntarily" agreed to the payment A gave to C?

Ok, so what if B does not "volunteer"?
Does B go after A or C?
A has breached the contract, so B goes after A.
UNLESS, B also had an agreement with C. Then B would go after C.

So why does CrackPete say go after C (the IRS)?

[notorial dissent]

So the third question is: if an employer/employee relationship does not exist between a withholding workplace payor and a worker payee, what would make withholding mandatory or exclude it from the worker's power to disagree? (My answer: it's voluntary.)

IF, there is no “employer/employee relationship” then there is no withholding situation mandatory or otherwise. It is not an issue. That is why they call it contractual labor.

[Dr. Caligari]

Or perhaps you can be the first to show why espousing CtC would not be upholding the law (after it has been ruled three times as unsanctionable)?

Which three times were those?

[The Observer]

I sense a cricket concert...

[notorial dissent]

Or at the very least a resounding silence.