|
Interesting, thank you for the comprehensive reply.
I understand and agree that there are bigger reasons to correct one's status than avoiding taxation. I share your view there. I agree that "is it the right thing to do?" should be the overriding question, but having it work (or at least having a chance to) is also a very important factor. I hope you would also agree with me that there would be no point in thousands of us pursuing a strategy that was noble, but often failed and still landed most of us in trouble.
To be clear, my original comments didn't mean to imply that I don't have any hope that the "Bork position" (for lack of better shorthand) has merit. In fact, I do have such hope. And I would also state that I put much more stock in real-life examples of successes, especially when there are more than one to point to, than I do in cool-sounding but untested/losing positions.
Correcting the administrative record in the way that we are referring to is actually the only method that at this point in my studies I have any real feeling could work---although there are "failure stories" out there for it, too, aren't there? I could swear I've read some. The record-correcting path makes a lot more sense to my mind than relying on any esoteric legal positions, especially code-based arguments.
What it seems like I haven't read, though, is a verifiable case where a court or the IRS came up against someone who had corrected their status and backed off, saying basically "whoops, we can't touch this guy because he has corrected his status and we no longer have jurisdiction over him". If you have something along those lines, I certainly would love to see it.
With regard to what Bork offers as to how to
"...exercise [your rights] without having to create a movement or obtaining signatures on a petition. The book lets you establish the parameters of your private relationship with government. It puts you firmly in the seat of governance where Jefferson, Madison, etc., intended for you to be."
...I hope after I buy and read the book that I will find that that promotional description refers to actual steps that can be taken and things to do, and not just theoretical stuff.
Put another way, I fully understand (and like a lot) the concept of proactively correcting presumptions in the administrative record, but what I DON'T see is any indication that the federal overlords care what the administrative record says. I need an explanation of what happens---real-world, not theoretical---when they encounter someone who has corrected his record before any action began.
I would think I'm an ideal candidate for this path (where the IRS aspect is concerned---I know there are other reasons) because I have no contact with them and haven't for many years, and don't anticipate any coming out of the blue since no one is reporting returns on me.
So you see, my IMF question was asked from curiosity, not an intention to do it as the main thrust of a strategy. Administrative record correction is likely to be my main strategy, but in the meantime I would like to see what's in my IMF, *if* I knew that getting it would not trigger any interest (put me "on the radar").
Another very big question I have is: even if I do this now, are its effects retroactive? Let's say I properly correct the record in 2008---does that cover me for the time before that? Does the correction work ab initio and nunc pro tunc?
|