861 EVIDENCE

&


HERE'S A WEBSITE I FOUND INTERESTING.APPARENTLY THE IRS CAN'T ANSWER TO THEIR QUESTIONS.


HAS ANYBODY SEEN THIS OR ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE BEFORE ON THIS FORUM?


http://www.861.info/

I JUST FOUND ANOTHER LINK ON THIS FORUM REGARDING THIS ISSUE.


NEVER MIND.

It is an "official" "frivolous argument."


Funny thing about the IRS. They send you these nice little letters that say:


"Hey. If you think you don't have to file a return, please write us and let us know."


No matter what you say, it's an "offical frivolous argument."


The only thing, in my experience in dealing with them, that is NOT "frivilous," is the filing of a return (based on unverified information returns), which you have to sign under penalty of perjury, and sending along the payment for an alleged debt that you couldn't prove yourself, let alone those cretins.& &


Lots of stuff about 861. Sure looks conclusive enough to me and a whole lot of other people in this country. It's just the IRS and courts who say it doesn't mean what it says.


Randy

I think it's a frivolous argument too, because the bottom line is that there is no liability&without a valid assessment.&


There was also one movie star who filed a 1040 using the&861 evidence to support his claim that he had no taxable income.&The amount&he wanted&refunded&on his 1040 was&$6 or $7 million.


Nobody is&required to file a return, let alone assess themselves.

Good point, Godd! Keen point-of-view!


Randy

mood - Truthful



The 861 argument is frivolous because it's that rantings of a moron. NOT because there's no valid assessment, not because of anything else, according to a federal dist. court chief judge anyway. If you can't outbrief that judge, admit he's right! If you cannot make sense of the brief, bow out of all commentary and let the real scholars speak.



http://www.noconfidence.com/Homepage...SECTION861.htm



Honor copyrights

[Ice]

"<u>No authority is cited </u>by Respondent for this conclusory allegation of North Carolina's Foreign sovereignty."



If you don't give Judicial Notice and explain, in detail, the law that defines the <u>u.</u>S.A. and the <u>U.</u>S.A., then how is the judge going to rule on your claim? If the "law" was cited it would have painted a clear and distinct picture for the judge. A claim was made and was not supported by law... therefore, "frivolous".



If this distinction had been made using proper procedure and supported by law, the judge would then have to make that distinction every time he mentioned the U.S.A. or the u.S.A. in his brief. Due to the fact that the distinction was never made the judge was allowed to use the terms interchangeably... thereby keeping the perception that these 2 separate entities are one and the same.



Every time the "United States" is mentioned after the above quoted statement... ask the question: "Which 'United States'?"



It's a damn shame that people are attempting to demonstrate truths in court without knowing the procedures that will accomplish it.



<u>"Petitioner has failed to produce evidence </u>demonstrating he is indeed a nonresident alien."



Petitioner failed to do so when Petitioner failed to support the claim addressed in "A". ( The first quote above ).



If Petitioner's initial claim had been supported by law, which wasn't done, the conclusion of "C" would have been just the opposite BECAUSE the Petitioner would have successfully demonstrated his "non-resident alien" status. The Petitioner's failure to demonstrate his claim by supporting that claim with "law" allowed the judge to totally dismiss his claim and rule against it.



Question to the members: How would Petitioner support his claim of "non-resident alien" status?

IRC 861(a)(3). Compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United States... Sec. 638 Continental shelf areas.
For the purposes of applying provisions of this chapter( including sections 861(a)(3) and 862(a)(3) int the case of the performance of personal services) with the respect to mines, oil and gas wells, and other natural deposits-
(1) the term 'United States' when used in a geographical sence includes the seabed and subsoil of those submarine areas which are adjacent to the territorial waters of the United States and over which the United States has exclusive rights, in accordance with international law, with respect to the exploration and exploitatio of natural resources; and
(2) the terms 'foreign country' and 'possession of the United States' when used in a geographical sence include the seabed and subsoil of those submarine areas...

Hope that helps someone.

[weishaupt1776]

The code is a trap! Don't get so caught up with it, that you forget to challenge jurisdiction/venue/authority & nexus pursuant to Art 1

[test]

Perhaps you already know about this link too, but just in case I'm going to post it again:


http://www.3rdear.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ul...ubb=forum;f=16