More Acknowledgements Of The Truth

Needless to say, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is never going to announce to the world that his jig is up-- sorry for the inconvenience-- and, can't we all just get along?  Among other reasons, since the law has always been there for anyone to read, the 'service' really hasn't been doing anything more than letting everyone fool themselves, anyway.  So, no direct admissions will be forthcoming.

However, 'Cracking the Code-...' warriors have received numerous acknowledgements of the truth from both the federal and state governments.  The vastly most common form of such acknowledgements is the refund check, of course.  Uncomplicated and unambiguous (not to mention one of the nicest things any American ever receives in the mail from any government body), the refund check needs no consideration or explanation.

There is another type of acknowledgement with which a few CtC warriors have been furnished-- a type not nearly as pleasant, and a little more complicated, but no less unambiguous.  These acknowledgements take the form of speed-bumps dropped in the path of warriors aiming for refunds, of the sort discussed at length at www.losthorizons.com/tax/RevealingPloys.htm.

The common characteristic of this type of acknowledgement is a deliberate mischaracterization of what has been asserted by the filer, in order to give color to some pretext under which the filing is stalled.  That is, unable to challenge the legal content of the filing as it actually is, but wanting desperately to thwart it, the government responds to something the filing does not assert (but which would be wrong, if it were asserted).  It is like the judge of an arithmetic contest who, favoring one candidate over the others, responds to a challenger's claim that 2 + 2 = 4 with, "Nice try Bobby, but I'm afraid that when you say 2 + 3 = 4, you're wrong."

Obviously, these responses confirm the soundness of the associated filing, because if what IS being claimed COULD be disputed, it would be.  That it is not disputed demonstrates that it cannot be.

Well, everyone's favorite federal agency has just slapped together a new version of this back-door acknowledgement, and several CtC warriors have already received their copies.  Others can expect them too, I am sure.  This version is in the form of a questionnaire, which the recipient is asked to complete and return-- a questionnaire declaring itself to be intended for "individuals who have recently filed return(s) claiming that Internal Revenue Code §§ 3401 and 3121 allow for an exemption of income reported on Forms W-2 and 1099" 

I need not point out to any reader of 'Cracking the Code-...', or even any regular reader of these newsletters, that no CtC warrior is likely to have ever claimed that "income" reported on a W-2 or 1099 was "exempted" from anything by virtue of ANY section of the code or the law.  What many ARE likely to have done is to have declined to report as "income" something which was not-- an entirely different thing.  AND THERE IS NO MISTAKING THIS!  In my own case, for instance, I have filled in Forms 4852 Substitute for W-2 by putting, on the line for the amount of "wages" received: -0-.  Not "XXX.XX, but I believe that it is exempted from tax under blah, blah, blah," as the language in this questionnaire would like to suggest is the case, but simply -0-.

My 1040s, which are only type of form that I file on which exemptions, if any, could actually be claimed, include no exemptions of any "wage" amounts at all.  And indeed, how could they?  No "wages" were received, so there is nothing to 'exempt'-- even if I believed, for some reason, that there IS a provision (that might apply to me) under which "wages" could be exempted .

Thus, what we have here is actually another trenchant acknowledgement by the federal government of the soundness of filings such as mine.  IF THE GOVERNMENT COULD DISPUTE SUCH FILINGS, IT WOULD DO SO.  It does not do so, and thereby admits that it cannot, even if only in as devious a fashion as it can contrive.

The simple and obvious purpose of this 'questionnaire' is not to sincerely dispute a filing, but rather, to intimidate and mislead.  Like all of its kind, it invites the recipient to entertain the suspicion that what they have done is actually what the questionnaire's authors suggest that they have, or to fear that they will be burdened with explaining how that is not so unless they meekly abandon their claim.  Doubtless its authors also hope that their deliberate efforts to evade the federal revenue laws, by failing to make refunds as they are obliged to do, will be forgiven as a misunderstanding when they are called to account for it.  I believe each of these purposes will fail, and, though I'd rather it didn't go to this much trouble, I suppose I must thank the IRS for once again demonstrating that what is explained about the law in 'Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America' is nothing but the truth.

(And if I should happen to get one of these 'questionnaires' myself, I'll owe the 'service' yet another thank you-- for the free bird cage liner.  I certainly wouldn't respond to the thing-- to do so might be taken as an agreement that I am a filer of the sort to whom the 'questionnaire' is directed.  The fact is, I have already made clear that this 'questionnaire' does not apply to me, by means of my filed return.  Furthermore, not only do these 'questionnaires' not even purport to be "required", but they do not constitute "reasonable requests for information" of the sort the Secretary of the Treasury is entitled to make, and for lack of cooperation with which, certain legal infirmities could arise under certain circumstances.  Such "reasonable requests" must directly relate to claims, deductions, etc. which actually WERE made on a return, and then only from an accountancy standpoint.  Under no circumstances can the Secretary or his delegates make a "reasonable request" regarding what a filer may have been reading lately, the particulars of his or her views on the law, or anything else appearing on this 'questionnaire'.)

A version of the "questionnaire" can be seen here.

It's Time To Demand An End To This "Frivolous" Nonsense