I have heard some similar stories from other folks with yahoo accounts, login to yahoo groups and check membership settings, make sure you not set to " special notices only " setting.
If they were really shutting people down, not sure why they did not go after my account because I have really laid down some heavy stuff a couple times. On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 9:05 PM, hal <[email protected]> wrote: > I am tuned out completely on either 1099OID or Redemption by Method! This > for most of the day! All other stuff beaming through! Either I am shot down > from these two sites or they have been crimped! Any ideas here! You in > touch? > ~Hal~ > > > *SilverDollar <[email protected]>* wrote: > > Note to Patrick Devine and to all who acknowledge his notices: > > This a little bit of propoganda thrown out there to scare away > the mis-informed, which is all well in good because most people > who are lazy minded or make an excuse to avoid learning the > process and just want templates to fill in their own information > are doomed to fail. > I have heard it all from people; " I know the material, I just need > an example to help get me started ". Well when I ask them a > question pertaining to the material and they cannot answer it, > I have pretty much busted them on their scheme. > These people don't realize how much trouble they can get into > if they do not know how to defend what they are doing and the > fact that they might be in a dire need of emergency help does > NOT in any way change the principles of the risk. So often > these type of people when they do fail the mentor gets blamed for > it then even more excuses follow another big mess. > ALERT TO THE PEOPLE! : > Mentors are NOT there for to accept your risks and liability. > > If you are a Mentor, get a disclaimer signed no matter what, that > the information you are giving is not fact, it is a fictional > interpretation > for entertainment until the proposed knowledge is verified. > > Take heed to the NOTICE on the door of the society called the > United States of America, this NOTICE is labeled Constitution > Of The United States Of America. Whoever shall enter this door > must accept all liability for the contracts and private agreements > they enter into. > > POA, AIF, AR, SPC, TPI are all attorney's in one form or another, but > you have to know the rules for each PERSONHOOD. Notice, I did > not say " strawman ". > > SD > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Lyn > Date: Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 11:08 AM > Subject: Fw: [1099-OID] ANOTHER IRS FRAUD ALERT > To: "SD" <[email protected]>, > > > Please check out the two attachments above and let me know your thoughts on > it. I think you should ask Patrick Devine about it also. > Lyn > > > > Problem Alerts >> >> Form 1099-OID Fraud >> >> Oct. 10, 2008 >> >> The IRS cautions taxpayers to avoid getting caught up >> in a new tax fraud disguised as a debt payment option >> for credit cards or mortgage debt. The fraud is also >> marketed as a way to reduce taxes or pay outstanding >> tax liabilities. It involves the filing of Form >> 1099-OID, Original Issue Discount, and/or bogus >> financial instruments such as bonded promissory notes >> or sight drafts. >> >> This fraud has evolved from an earlier frivolous >> argument that a "strawman" bank account has been >> created at the Treasury Department for each U.S. >> citizen, and that individuals could use such >> "strawman" accounts to pay debts and claim withholding >> credits. >> >> The IRS addresses the "strawman" argument in Revenue >> Ruling 2005-21 and Revenue Ruling 2004-31, and >> discredits the use of this position for income tax >> purposes. Moreover, the courts that have reviewed the >> "strawman" argument and other similar arguments have >> found them frivolous. >> >> For more information on frivolous schemes, see The >> Truth About Frivolous Arguments. >> >> >> ------------------------------------ >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/1099-OID/ >> >> <*> Your email settings: >> Individual Email | Traditional >> >> <*> To change settings online go to: >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/1099-OID/join >> (Yahoo! ID required) >> >> <*> To change settings via email: >> mailto:[email protected] >> mailto:[email protected] >> >> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: >> [email protected] >> >> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: >> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ >> >> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.13/1916 - Release Date: 1/26/2009 > 7:08 AM > > Internal Revenue Service > Revenue Ruling > * **TaxLinks.com** * sm > Rev. Rul. 2004-31 > Rev. Rul. 2004-31, 2004-12 I.R.B. 617 > Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.) > Revenue Ruling > FRIVOLOUS TAX RETURNS; MERITLESS "REMOVAL ARGUMENTS." > Released: March 3, 2004 > Published: March 22, 2004 > Section 61.--Gross Income Defined > Frivolous tax returns; meritless "removal arguments." This ruling > emphasizes to taxpayers, and to promoters and return preparers who assist > taxpayers with schemes, that there is no law, court decision or other > authority that permits a taxpayer to remove himself from the federal tax > system in order to avoid otherwise applicable taxes. Arguments to the > contrary are not only wrong, but frivolous. > Frivolous tax returns; meritless "removal arguments." This ruling > emphasizes to taxpayers, and to promoters and return preparers who assist > taxpayers with schemes, that there is no law, court decision or other > authority that permits a taxpayer to remove himself from the federal tax > system in order to avoid otherwise applicable taxes. Arguments to the > contrary are not only wrong, but frivolous. > PURPOSE > The Service is aware that some individuals are attempting to reduce their > federal income tax obligations by claiming that they have been "removed" or > "redeemed" from the federal tax system. Although the specific arguments made > by these individuals vary, some argue that the Government commits a fraud > when it attempts to collect debts, including tax debts, and that this > purported fraud allows individuals to "chargeback" debts that the Government > purportedly owes to these individuals to eliminate any asserted tax > liability. "Removal," "redemption," and "chargeback" schemes are referred to > here collectively as "removal schemes" and "removal arguments." Some > promoters are marketing a package, kit, or other materials that claim to > show individuals how they can avoid paying income taxes based on these and > other meritless arguments. > This revenue ruling emphasizes to individuals, and to promoters and > return preparers who assist individuals with these schemes, that there is no > authority under any U.S. law that supports the argument that an individual > can be "removed" or "redeemed" from the federal tax system to avoid tax > liabilities or that an individual can satisfy debts, including tax > liabilities, by making "chargeback" or other similar arguments. Removal and > redemption arguments have no merit and are frivolous. > The Service is committed to identifying individuals who attempt to avoid > or evade their tax obligations. The Service will take vigorous enforcement > action against these taxpayers and against promoters and return preparers > who assist taxpayers in taking these frivolous positions. Frivolous returns > and other similar documents submitted to the IRS are processed through the > Service's Frivolous Return Program. As part of this program, the Service > confirms whether taxpayers who take frivolous positions have filed all of > their required tax returns, computes the correct amount of tax and interest > due, and determines whether civil and criminal penalties should apply. The > Service also determines whether civil or criminal penalties should apply to > return preparers, promoters, and others who assist taxpayers in taking > frivolous positions, and recommends whether a court injunction should be > sought to halt such activities. Other information about frivolous tax > positions is available on the Service website at www.irs.gov. > DISCUSSION OF REMOVAL AND REDEMPTION ARGUMENTS AND SCHEMES > Removal arguments and schemes are loosely related and take a variety of > different forms. Proponents of removal arguments and schemes typically > claim, even though they remain citizens or residents of the U.S., that they > are not required to file federal tax returns and pay their tax obligations > because they have been removed or redeemed from the federal tax system. As a > result of participating in removal schemes, these individuals do not file > required returns or pay the income tax that they owe. > In some variations of the removal argument, individuals claim that the > Government commits a fraud when it attempts to collect debts, including tax > debts, and that this purported fraud allows individuals to "chargeback" > debts that the Government purportedly owes to these individuals to eliminate > any liability to the Government. In other variations, individuals argue that > Federal Reserve notes, or "paper money," are not legal tender and that the > Government has been wrongfully using taxpayers and their labor as security > for the Government's obligations. Other individuals argue that they may > reclaim, or "chargeback," their own value from the Government as a result of > the Government's wrongful conduct and then use that value to pay the > individuals' debts. Participants in removal schemes often attempt to offset, > collect or "redeem" their asserted claims against the Government by using or > filing liens, bills of exchange, and various Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) > forms, or by relying on misinterpretations of federal laws and the Uniform > Commercial Code. > Participants in the removal schemes may rely on one or more of the > following erroneous arguments, alleged facts or actions to support their > frivolous claims: (a) the bankruptcy of the United States occurred > contemporaneously with the creation of the Federal Reserve, the start of the > Great Depression, the removal of the United States from the gold standard, > or the passage of House Joint Resolution 192 (claimed to be a declaration of > bankruptcy); (b) the Government's use of birth certificates of taxpayers as > registered securities; (c) the filing of documents with variations on a > taxpayer's name, (e.g., using all capital letters in some documents and > standard capitalization in others) creates a "straw man" or "nom de guerre" > as the debtor to the Government that replaces the individual who has removed > himself from the Government's jurisdiction; (d) the "redemption" of debts > from the Government by filing UCC forms, such as the UCC-1 form; (e) the > submission of documents to the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury to establish a > fictitious bank account (sometimes referred to as a "Treasury Direct > Account") where the value of charged back debts is located; (f) the practice > of "accepting for value" official Government documents and the "charging > back" of those documents by responding to them with a "private notice" that > may include a "Treasury Direct Account Number," a "Memory of Account Number" > or a "Posted Certified Account Number"; and (g) the use of "Bills of > Exchange," Form UCC-3 and "Sight Drafts" to discharge debts to the > Government. This list is not exclusive, however. Participants in removal > schemes also make other equally frivolous arguments. > Instead of filing federal income tax returns with the Service, > participants in removal schemes frequently send documents and other > correspondence to the Service and other Government agencies. Examples of > these documents include: improperly filed Forms 1040-ES, Estimated Tax for > Individuals, reporting the location of the funds in a fictitious bank > account from which the IRS can collect taxes; improperly filed Fiduciary Tax > Returns; improperly filed Forms 8300, Report of Cash Payments Over $10,000 > Received in a Trade or Business, reporting that a person or entity has > "charged back" after "accepting for value" the Government's documents; > improperly filed Forms W-9, Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and > Certification, to obtain a social security or employee identification number > of a person or entity to include on the Form 8300; "commercial affidavits" > in lieu of tax returns stating that the filer is a secured party and has no > income for a particular year; and documents and correspondence to "accept > for value" IRS notices of tax liens and levies to have the tax balances paid > from the filer's "Treasury Direct Account." > There is no authority under any U.S. law that supports the claim that > individuals may avoid their federal income tax obligations based on removal > arguments such as those described in this revenue ruling. Similarly, there > is no authority under any U.S. law that supports the claim that requiring > payment of a debt owed to the Government by commercially acceptable means > amounts to a fraud by the Government. Section 61 of the Internal Revenue > Code provides that gross income includes all income from whatever source > derived, including compensation for services. Adjustments to income, > deductions, and credits must be claimed in accordance with the provisions of > the Internal Revenue Code and the Treasury regulations thereunder and other > applicable federal law. Section 6011 provides that any person liable for any > tax imposed by the Internal Revenue Code shall make a return when required > by Treasury regulations, and that returns must be in accordance with > Treasury regulations and IRS forms. Section 6012 identifies the persons who > are required to file income tax returns. Section 6151, except as > specifically provided, requires that taxpayers pay their tax when the return > is due. Section 6311 requires payment of taxes by commercially acceptable > means as prescribed by Treasury Regulations. > Courts repeatedly have rejected removal arguments and other similar > arguments as frivolous and have penalized taxpayers who make these types of > arguments. See, e.g., United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 500 (7th Cir. > 1991) (affirming criminal conviction for tax evasion and rejecting "wholly > defective" arguments that the federal tax laws did not apply to taxpayer > because he was a "freeborn, natural individual, a citizen of the State of > Indiana, and a 'master' -- not -- 'servant' of his Government"); United > States v. Condo, 741 F.2d 238, 239 (9th Cir. 1984) (affirming criminal > conviction for tax fraud and rejecting as "frivolous" the argument that > Federal Reserve Notes are not valid currency, cannot be taxed, and are > merely "debts"); United States v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182, 184 (10th Cir. > 1980) (affirming criminal conviction for willfully failing to file a return > and rejecting the taxpayer's argument that "the Federal Reserve Notes in > which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, s 8, > United States Constitution"). > Although individuals who rely on these removal arguments generally do not > file federal income tax returns with the Service, some individuals also are > relying on removal or similar frivolous arguments to claim that they can > reduce or eliminate their tax by filing tax returns in which they report > zero income and tax liability. See Rev. Rul. 2004-34, 2004-12 I.R.B. 619 > (3/22/2004), for a discussion of this frivolous position. > CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES > The Service will challenge the claims of individuals who attempt to avoid > or evade their federal tax liability by refusing to file returns and pay tax > on the basis that they have been removed or redeemed from the federal tax > system. In addition to liability for the tax due plus statutory interest, > individuals who fail to file and pay tax or who claim refunds based on this > or any other frivolous arguments face substantial civil and criminal > penalties. Potential civil penalties include: (1) the section 6651(f) > penalty for fraudulent failure to file, which is up to 75 percent of the > amount of taxes the taxpayer should have reported on the return ; (2) the > section 6651(a)(1) penalty for failure to file, which is equal to up to 25 > percent of the amount of taxes the taxpayer should have reported on the > return; (3) the section 6651(a)(2) penalty for failure to pay, which is > equal to .5 percent of the tax for each month or fraction of a month the tax > remains unpaid, not to exceed a total of 25 percent; and; (4) a penalty of > up > to $25,000 under section 6673 if the taxpayer makes frivolous arguments in > the United States Tax Court. > Individuals relying on this scheme also may face criminal prosecution > for: (1) attempting to evade or defeat tax under section 7201 for which the > penalty is a fine of up to $100,000 and imprisonment for up to 5 years; (2) > willful failure to make a return or pay tax under section 7203 for which the > penalty is up to $25,000 and imprisonment of up to 1 year, or (3) making > false statements under section 7206 for which the penalty is a fine of up to > $100,000 and imprisonment for up to 3 years. > Persons who promote this scheme and those who assist taxpayers in > claiming tax benefits based on this scheme also may face penalties. > Potential penalties include: (1) a $250 penalty under section 6694 for each > return prepared by an income tax return preparer who knew or should have > known that the taxpayer's argument was frivolous (or $1,000 for each return > where the return preparer's actions were willful, intentional or reckless); > (2) a $1,000 penalty under section 6701 for aiding and abetting the > understatement of tax; and (3) criminal prosecution under section 7206 for > which the penalty is a fine of up to $100,000 and imprisonment for up to 3 > years for assisting or advising about the preparation of a false return or > other document under the internal revenue laws. Promoters and others who > assist taxpayers in engaging in these schemes also may be enjoined from > doing so under section 7408. > HOLDING > Individuals may not avoid or evade their tax liability by refusing to > file returns and pay tax on the basis that they have been removed or > redeemed from the federal tax system or by claiming that they can > "chargeback" their debts to the Government. Arguments that individuals may > be removed or redeemed from the federal tax system or may "chargeback" their > debts to the Government have no merit and are frivolous. Individuals who > attempt to reduce their federal tax liability by taking frivolous positions > based on these arguments will be liable for the actual tax due plus > statutory interest. In addition, the Service will determine civil penalties > against individuals where appropriate, and those individuals may also face > criminal prosecution. The Service also will determine appropriate civil > penalties against persons who prepare frivolous returns or promote frivolous > positions, and those persons may also face criminal prosecution. Promoters > and others who assist taxpayers in engaging in these schemes also may be > enjoined from doing so under section 7408. > DRAFTING INFORMATION > This revenue ruling was authored by the Office of Associate Chief > Counsel (Procedure and Administration), Administrative Provisions and > Judicial Practice Division. For further information regarding this revenue > ruling, contact that office at (202) 622-4940 (not a toll-free call). > Rev. Rul. 2004-31, 2004-12 I.R.B. 617 > > >
