http://penaltyprotester.com/

[AndyK]

Originally Posted by iamfreeru2

WOW!! An apology from AndyK. Apology accepted. The government still has to overcome the PRA. According to the PRA the 1040 has no valid OMB number. This is the same thing Lear used to defeat the parole violation the government went after him for. That was also dismissed.

If the 1040 does not have a valid OMB number there can be no penalty for not using the form. It is laid out in the link that Kaos Theory provided, where there is documentation supporting this. I have read most of those documents and believe the government will have a tough time with it. This is not the OMB scam as espoused on Quatlooser either. That's just another obvious distortion.

In the upper, right-hand corner of the 2005 Form 1040, you will find "OMB No. 1545-0074"

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by AndyK

In the upper, right-hand corner of the 2005 Form 1040, you will find "OMB No. 1545-0074"

DUH!!! You don't say? Problem is it is "invalid" and has been for a long time according to the PRA. Won't argue with you on it though. Notice that I did not say it had no number. You guys do have a difficult time reading and comprehending don't you? You are now back on my ignore list

[AndyK]

Originally Posted by iamfreeru2

DUH!!! You don't say? Problem is it is "invalid"

WRONG !!!

and has been for a long time according to the PRA. Won't argue with you on it though. Notice that I did not say it had no number. You guys do have a difficult time reading and comprehending don't you? You are now back on my ignore list

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/librar...URY.html#TREAS

OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS
INVENTORY OF APPROVED INFORMATION COLLECTIONS
MAY 02, 2006

OMB NO: 1545-0074 EXPIRATION DATE: 12/31/2006
RESPS:130,200,000 HOURS:3,000,000,000 COSTS(000):$23,400,000
U.S. Individual Income Tax Return
FORMS: 1040 SCHEDULES-A-B-C SCHEDULES-C-EZ SCHEDULES-D-D-1
SCHEDULES-E-EIC SCHEDULES-F-H-J SCHEDULES-R-SE

It is still valid. It helps to check legitimate sources of information.

[mnchicago]

What is your point, Andy?

Several times, I have mentioned you are mostly right
about the morass of IRS rules and regulations that are
legitimate, as they apply to taxpayers.

I agree that the preponderance of cases cited are in
the government's win column.

My still standing question, with no answer, is what about
all the rules and regulations that do not apply to people
like me?

Not one sentence, not one case cite applies to those
who simply choose not to get caught up in the IRS
trap of becoming a taxpayer, as defined by the code.

Once again, where is the LAW requiring anyone to file
an income trax form?

I am not asking for you to run with the same garbage
found in the code that ONLY applies to those who have
unwittingly "volunteered" to become a taxpayer, subject
to all the rules and regulations; subject to all the penalties
and fines. Once again, no disagreement there.

I am asking for the LAW that lawfully requires any
individual to file a tax form. I am asking for the law that
requires someone like me to file a tax form.

I keep asking for substantive responses and get none.
You are a sharp individual, so I do not expect you to
try and impress me with the smoke and mirror stuff from
the tax code.

Still waiting.

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by mnchicago

What is your point, Andy?

Several times, I have mentioned you are mostly right
about the morass of IRS rules and regulations that are
legitimate, as they apply to taxpayers.

I agree that the preponderance of cases cited are in
the government's win column.

My still standing question, with no answer, is what about
all the rules and regulations that do not apply to people
like me?

Not one sentence, not one case cite applies to those
who simply choose not to get caught up in the IRS
trap of becoming a taxpayer, as defined by the code.

Once again, where is the LAW requiring anyone to file
an income trax form?

I am not asking for you to run with the same garbage
found in the code that ONLY applies to those who have
unwittingly "volunteered" to become a taxpayer, subject
to all the rules and regulations; subject to all the penalties
and fines. Once again, no disagreement there.

I am asking for the LAW that lawfully requires any
individual to file a tax form. I am asking for the law that
requires someone like me to file a tax form.

I keep asking for substantive responses and get none.
You are a sharp individual, so I do not expect you to
try and impress me with the smoke and mirror stuff from
the tax code.

Still waiting.

You are beating a dead horse and you will NEVER get a substantive response from AndyK.

I do not file 1040s or W-4s, but the fact that there has been dismissals because of the PRA regarding OMB numbers is very interesting. I have friends that are taxpayers and we are trying to help them because they see no other way out and we cannot teach them otherwise. You cannot teach what one is not willing to learn. It is also called fear. Keep it up mnchicago and keep showing just what kind of troll AndyK is.

[Livefire]

The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessmentand collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers.

Economy Plumbing and Heating Co v United States, 470 F. 2d 585 (1972)

[AndyK]

Originally Posted by mnchicago

What is your point, Andy?

Several times, I have mentioned you are mostly right
about the morass of IRS rules and regulations that are
legitimate, as they apply to taxpayers.

I agree that the preponderance of cases cited are in
the government's win column.

My still standing question, with no answer, is what about
all the rules and regulations that do not apply to people
like me?

Not one sentence, not one case cite applies to those
who simply choose not to get caught up in the IRS
trap of becoming a taxpayer, as defined by the code.

Once again, where is the LAW requiring anyone to file
an income trax form?

I am not asking for you to run with the same garbage
found in the code that ONLY applies to those who have
unwittingly "volunteered" to become a taxpayer, subject
to all the rules and regulations; subject to all the penalties
and fines. Once again, no disagreement there.

I am asking for the LAW that lawfully requires any
individual to file a tax form. I am asking for the law that
requires someone like me to file a tax form.

I keep asking for substantive responses and get none.
You are a sharp individual, so I do not expect you to
try and impress me with the smoke and mirror stuff from
the tax code.

Still waiting.

I have posted the specific laws and regulations which require the payment of taxes on income and the filing of the appropriate forms.

If you choose to define yourself out of the laws, so be it.

Since you have predetermined that the laws don't apply to you, nothing I, or anyone else, can say will make you change your mind.

[UGA Lawdog]

Originally Posted by AndyK

I have posted the specific laws and regulations which require the payment of taxes on income and the filing of the appropriate forms.

If you choose to define yourself out of the laws, so be it.

Since you have predetermined that the laws don't apply to you, nothing I, or anyone else, can say will make you change your mind.

AndyK: Oh, I don't know. Some time in the clink for tax evasion and/or failure to file might change his mind.

Or maybe not. Irwin Schiff just got sent away for the third time, after all. Some folks never learn.

[mnchicago]

Nice try, Andy. Frankly, I expected more from you.

I do not "define myself out of the laws," and even if I did,
as you imply, specifically, out of what laws am I defining myself?

That was, and still is, my question.

Do not escape answering it by trying to shift the burden
on to me. I have already provided the answer.

I have posted the specific laws and regulations which
require the payment of taxes on income and the filing of
the appropriate forms.


I do not know what you posted, but I can assure you,
whatever you posted comes from the rules and regulations
found in the code, which do not apply to me!

Not because I defined myself out, AndyK, but because
the IRS could not define me in!

Now you are beginning to act like Shoonra. Is it that you
just don't get it, or you cannot admit you have no answer?

---
Lawdog:

I do not know who you are, but from two recent posts I
have seen from you, you have even less credibilty than
Shoonra.

You're so smart? You answer the question.

Trust me, based on what you just posted above, you
ain't even in the ballgame.

You are more like a lapdog than a lawdog. The law
part of your name is a misnomer.

Don't waste my time.

[UGA Lawdog]

The "I'm a non-taxpayer" argument doesn't work, either.

From U.S. v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978 (8th Cir. 1983):

Drefke argues that taxes are debts which can only be incurred voluntarily when individuals contract with the government for services and that those who choose to enter such contracts do so by signing 1040 and W-4 forms. By refusing to sign those forms, Drefke argues he is "immune" from the Internal Revenue Service's jurisdiction as a "nontaxpayer." This is an imaginative argument, but totally without arguable merit. 26 U.S.C. s 1 imposes upon "every" individual a certain rate of income tax depending upon their amount of taxable income. 26 U.S.C. s 6012 states that unmarried individuals having a gross income in excess of $4,300, and married individuals entitled to make joint returns having a gross income in excess of $5,400 "shall" file tax returns for the taxable year. Considering Drefke's gross income for 1979 and 1980, he was clearly required to file tax returns for those years.

And your next inane argument is....?