Doesn't file 1040s

[apefarms]

Say you don't file your 1040. IRS sends notice. But the notice is in all-caps whereas your name isn't. Who is it for? You throw it in the trash. More notices. More throws. Notice from the courts. Same thing, all-caps. Throw it away. So eventually nothing happens. It's all smoke and mirrors. Bailiff or police come knocking looking for all-caps name. "Who goes there? Who are you looking for?" - they can't say. You got away scot free.

[Burnaby49]

Where are they all coming from?

[NYGman]

Depending on what you owe, you may be in for a surprise. However What I think you are missing, not being US, is that tax would be taken out of your paycheck by your employer. From my time in VITA, Most of THE returns I assisted with needed to be filed, to get back money. Failing to file a return when the IRS ows you money is just foolish. Based on my experience, it seemed most wage earners, earning less than 20-30k are likely due money back, and would lose out not filing.

That, and you are your name, whether ALL CAPS, all lower case, or Proper Case, the old straw man, I am not the ALL CAPS NAME game doesn't work. My guess is that the police would arrest whomever they believed to be the person of interest and will let the court figure it out.

Good luck with that. Can I ask, why do you believe there is a difference between John Doe, JOHN DOE, and john doe? Is there any supporting law, or cases you can point to showing it works. We have Meads v Meads but that isn't a US opinion, although the logic is still on point. I know of no case where this ploy (I am not the ALL CAPS MAN) has worked. Can you provide us an example?

[noblepa]

Say you don't file your 1040. IRS sends notice. But the notice is in all-caps whereas your name isn't. Who is it for? You throw it in the trash. More notices. More throws. Notice from the courts. Same thing, all-caps. Throw it away. So eventually nothing happens. It's all smoke and mirrors. Bailiff or police come knocking looking for all-caps name. "Who goes there? Who are you looking for?" - they can't say. You got away scot free.

Since you are posting on a forum concerned with US taxes, please post a single verifiable case in which your scenario has played out the way you described. One caveat, the case must be a case in which, after five years, the IRS has not garnisheed his wages, foreclosed on his home, seized bank accounts or other financial assets.

One can "get away scot free" for a few years, but the IRS seldom gives up. That is why I insist that you cite a case in which the person suffered no consequences of his actions for at least five years.

[fortinbras]

They don't send the local police to look for a tax scofflaw who ignores the mail. They finally give up any cordial solution to the situation and have a choice of things to do, none of them pleasant. A federal tax lien notice enables the IRS to seize bank accounts, intercept Social Security and other federal checks, and other annoyances. Getting a federal indictment for a crime like tax evasion means search warrants, subpoena, and even categorization as a federal fugitive. Things can get ugly fast.

[Pottapaug1938]

If the police, the FBI or whoever shows up at my house, and they have a warrant for the arrest of "POTTAPAUG MOUNTAIN", and I tell them that I am not "POTTAPAUG MOUNTAIN," but "Pottapaug Mountain", all that will get me is an extra-special tightening of the handcuffs.

But, as noblepa says, show us a US court case where someone has played this game, and five-years-plus later, has escaped the consequences mentioned by him. Don't knock yourself out, though, because I'll give you a hint: THERE AREN'T ANY.

[apefarms]

But our subject is a private man without SS or bank accounts, and when the police arrives with the warrant ...

cop: are you AL CAPS?
subject: who are you seeking?
cop: I'm looking for an AL CAPS.
subject: how can I help you?
cop: do you know where I can find AL CAPS?
subject: describe it.

cop leaves. scot free again. See how simple this game is. Note that our subject is genuinely interested to help because previously he received letters addressed to all-caps name, and then suddenly this guy in a uniform shows up.

[wserra]

But our subject is a private man without SS or bank accounts, and when the police arrives with the warrant ...

cop: are you AL CAPS?
subject: who are you seeking?
cop: I'm looking for an AL CAPS.
subject: how can I help you?
cop: do you know where I can find AL CAPS?
subject: describe it.

cop leaves.

No, cop doesn't. Instead, the conversation continues:

cop: "We're not playing this game. You're under arrest. Place your hands behind your back. You have the right to remain silent."

See how simple this game is.

It is indeed.

BTW, how does "AL CAPS" sound different from "Al Caps"?

[notorial dissent]

A name is a name is a name is a name, whether it is written traditionally, or in all caps, or all lowercase. Your argument is irrelevant and has no validity.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

BTW, how does "AL CAPS" sound different from "Al Caps"?

I was assuming it meant that the officer was shouting

[apefarms]

No, cop doesn't. Instead, the conversation continues:

cop: "We're not playing this game. You're under arrest. Place your hands behind your back. You have the right to remain silent."

No, cop doesn't, because cop has no reason to arrest the man standing in front of him. What is the reasonable suspicion that the man and AL CAPS are the same?

BTW, how does "AL CAPS" sound different from "Al Caps"?

Irrelevant! The cop shows up seeking some/one/thing named AL CAPS. A reasonable man could conclude that it's related to the letters, and therefore has a reason to investigate further by asking questions.

Still too easy!

[wserra]

cop has no reason to arrest the man standing in front of him. What is the reasonable suspicion that the man and AL CAPS are the same?

Because the team executing the warrant will have either (1) someone - usually the case agent - who knows the individual to be arrested from either surveillance or face-to-face contact, or (2) his photo.

Your experience in this stuff is limited to anonymous posting on the internet, isn't it?

[apefarms]

Because the team executing the warrant will have either (1) someone - usually the case agent - who knows the individual to be arrested from either surveillance or face-to-face contact, or (2) his photo.

As you well know, the cop can't act with JUST the photo. There needs to be something backing up the photo. How did he get the photo?

scenario: cop to "individual": Is this AL CAPS (showing a photo)? individual:

1. yes it is.
2. I know him as Al Caps.

Only scenario 1 has corroborating evidence binding AL CAPS and the man. Notice here that the individual could be mistaken or lying, because he's asserting the identity of the entity AL CAPS, whereas in the second scenario he doesn't.

Still too easy! Amp it up!

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Sadly it's pigeon chess time again.

[Pottapaug1938]

But our subject is a private man without SS or bank accounts, and when the police arrives with the warrant ...

cop: are you AL CAPS?
subject: who are you seeking?
cop: I'm looking for an AL CAPS.
subject: how can I help you?
cop: do you know where I can find AL CAPS?
subject: describe it.

cop leaves. scot free again. See how simple this game is. Note that our subject is genuinely interested to help because previously he received letters addressed to all-caps name, and then suddenly this guy in a uniform shows up.

Horsefeathers. "Our subject" is NOT "genuinely interested to [sic] help". He is playing name games, of a sort which has never worked in the entire history of American jurisprudence.

At any rate, the officers (police or FBI) will not show up and say something like "I am here with an arrest warrant for AL CAPS." They will say "I am here with an arrest warrant for Al Caps." If Al then asks "are you here to arrest AL CAPS, the strawman, because that's who your warrant indicates as its subject?", the cops will then demand to see the subject's identification, which they have a right to do. If the ID says "AL CAPS, or "Al Caps", the handcuffs go on; and as I said earlier, they will likely go on extra-tight.

It's easy for you to win a debate when you write your own dialogue, based on legal fallacies. But again -- since I'm tiring quickly of your posts, I repeat my earlier challenge: show us ONE American court case where someone, playing the straw man/natural man game, has escaped legal consequences, of not filing a 1040, for at least five years.

[Pottapaug1938]

Sadly it's pigeon chess time again.

It's getting close to time to put the pigeon inside a coop.

[apefarms]

Horsefeathers. "Our subject" is NOT "genuinely interested to [sic] help". He is playing name games, of a sort which has never worked in the entire history of American jurisprudence.

He is not playing "name games", the cop is, because he's refusing to identify AL CAPS. Btw, the preposition "to" is perfectly fine there, because the man is interested to "learn more", rather than showing a general interest in helping out.

At any rate, the officers (police or FBI) will not show up and say something like "I am here with an arrest warrant for AL CAPS." They will say "I am here with an arrest warrant for Al Caps."

But according to wserra "BTW, how does "AL CAPS" sound different from "Al Caps"?"

If Al then asks "are you here to arrest AL CAPS, the strawman, because that's who your warrant indicates as its subject?"

Nobody said anything about a "strawman". That's on you.

the cops will then demand to see the subject's identification, which they have a right to do. If the ID says "AL CAPS, or "Al Caps", the handcuffs go on; and as I said earlier, they will likely go on extra-tight.

This is a mistake in law. You are required to identify - not carry identification.

I repeat my earlier challenge: show us ONE American court case where someone, playing the straw man/natural man game, has escaped legal consequences, of not filing a 1040, for at least five years.

Why is this relevant?

[apefarms]

What is "pigeon chess" and how is it related to this thread?

[Famspear]

Say you don't file your 1040. IRS sends notice. But the notice is in all-caps whereas your name isn't. Who is it for? You throw it in the trash. More notices. More throws.

I think what you meant to say is that the IRS sends a "NOTICE", not a "notice". You THROW it (not "throw" it) in the "TRASH", not the "trash".

You really need to pay attention to the proper terminology.

Notice from the courts. Same thing, all-caps. Throw it away. So eventually nothing happens. It's all smoke and mirrors.

Notice from what courts? You mean the COURTS, don't you? In either case, neither the courts nor the COURTS are going to send you a notice (or a NOTICE) merely because you didn't file your Form 1040. That's not the way tax law works.

Bailiff or police come knocking looking for all-caps name.

In the United States of America, the bailiff (or BAILIFF) doesn't come to you. A bailiff is an officer who assists in the judge in a court. The police (or POLICE) won't come either. This is Federal tax matter, remember? The "police" don't enforce the Federal income tax laws.

"Who goes there? Who are you looking for?" - they can't say. You got away scot free.

Boy, that's a good question. "Who goes there?" You're "living in a world of make-believe", pal -- and you're "trying not to let it show". Since you're fascinated by the capitalization of letters, and you apparently have bought into the nonsense, check this out:

Defendant [Kenneth Wayne Leaming] is apparently a member of a group loosely styled "sovereign citizens". The Court has deduced this from a number of Defendant's peculiar habits. First, like Mr. Leaming, sovereign citizens are fascinated by capitalization. They appear to believe that capitalizing names have some sort of legal effect. For example, Defendant writes that "the REGISTERED FACTS appearing in the above Paragraph evidence the uncontroverted and uncontrovertible FACTS that the SLAVERY SYSTEMS operated in the names UNITED STATES, United States, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and United States of America ... are terminated nunc pro tunc by public policy, U.C.C. 1-103 ..." (Def.'s Mandatory Jud. Not. at 2.) He appears to believe that by capitalizing "United States", he is referring to a different entity than the federal government. For better or for worse, it's the same country.

Second, sovereign citizens, like Mr. Leaming, love grandiose legalese. "COMES NOW, Kenneth Wayne, born free to the family Leaming, [date of birth redacted], constituent to The People of the State of Washington constituted 1878 and admitted to the union 22 February 1889 by Act of Congress, a Man, "State of Body" competent to be a witness and having First Hand Knowledge of The FACTS ..." (Def.'s Mandatory Jud. Not. at 1.)

Third, Defendant evinces, like all sovereign citizens, a belief that the federal government is not real and that he does not have to follow the law. Thus, Defendant argues that as a result of the "REGISTERED FACTS", the "states of body, persons, actors and other parties perpetuating the above-captioned transaction(s) [i.e., the Court and prosecutors] are engaged ... in acts of TREASON, and if unknowingly as victims of TREASON and FRAUD ..." (Def.'s Mandatory Jud. Not. at 2.)

The Court, therefore, feels some measure of responsibility to inform Defendant that all the fancy legal-sounding things he has read on the internet are make-believe.

--Order, docket entry 102, Feb. 12, 2013, United States v. Kenneth Wayne Leaming, case no. 12-cr-5039-RBL, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (emphasis added).

Partly as a result of his "beliefs" about capitalization (or CAPITALIZATION) of things, Mr. Leaming is currently a "guest" (oh, excuse me, a "GUEST") of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (or if you like, the "FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS"). Specifically, he is "guest" number 34928-086 at the United States Penitentiary at Marion, Illinois.

[noblepa]

Apefarms,

In American law, precedent is important. We can argue here all day about what the law is or isn't or what it should or shouldn't be. At the end of the day, however, the law and the interpretation of it, is what the courts say it is.

So, again, please cite a single case in which someone has disputed their tax liability on the basis of incorrect capitalization, and the court has ruled in their favor.

A single case.

Others here have cited numerous cases in which just the opposite has happened; courts have ruled over and over again that capitalization is irrelevant.

That's the way the law works in the real world.