I'd like the panel to discuss ...

'Cracking the Code' by Pete Hendrickson

Pete Hendrickson has literally 'cracked the Internal Revenue Code' by performing exhaustive searches to discover that Private Sector receipts are not subject to Federal Income taxes - this is huge! His information has helped readers to receive over $9 million in refunds from the IRS.

8,324 votes
Vote
Sign in
Check!
(thinking…)
Reset
or sign in with
  • facebook
  • google
    Password icon
    I agree to the terms of service
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    anonymousanonymous shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    6953 comments

    Sign in
    Check!
    (thinking…)
    Reset
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      I agree to the terms of service
      Signed in as (Sign out)
      Submitting...
      • BrainySmurf76BrainySmurf76 commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        jesse james, to finalize it up for me, for private-sector the W2 and W3 are all a W4 Social Security connection and a 1099-Misc is basically erroneous and is a tort violation? We don't agree on one actually being liable but the first statement questions basically create the liability of some sort. Is that accurate?

      • jesse jamesjesse james commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Ohh yeah....DMVP covered SS all right!
        And get this....DMVP said that SS is a legitimate tax.
        So if SS is legit then DMVP negates himself and his lawful money conspiracy theory.

      • BrainySmurf76BrainySmurf76 commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Hey , johnthetaxist, that SS insurance policy jj mentions, is that in Lawful Money? DMVP cover that topic?

      • jesse jamesjesse james commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Brainy.......!
        If you are earning 3121(a) "wages" for the purpose of SS then you are earning 3401(a) "wages" for the purpose of collecting at source.
        SS is an insurance policy...you get the full benefits of what SS offers. You dont get to declare what premium amount you want to pay for full coverage at the end of the year.
        You were covered under SS for unemployment benefits if you needed it...food stamps are also a benefit even if you didn't apply for them...you were covered Brainy!

        You have to come to terms with this Brainy!
        I know you have a heavy debt with the IRS so admitting you made a mistake by filing the CtC way is hard to swallow.
        Pride and ego are a son of a bitch to conquer....I know I was there about 4 years ago when my problems with the IRS came to a head.

        Let it settle in Brainy

      • BrainySmurf76BrainySmurf76 commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        "open your eyes beyond what Pete says is taxable activity"
        Oh no you got me all wrong there. I am going off what the laws state. In the case of "wages", that is solely (if private sector) for SS withholding purposes. It doesn't necessarily make ones earnings actual "wages". I see your point honestly I do, but just because a payer via a W4 follows a procedure doesn't make one liable for the tax. There are other factors involved in the end.
        "The Revenue Act of 1862, Section 93:
        “And be it further enacted,...that any party, in his or her own behalf,...shall be permitted to declare, under oath or affirmation, the form and manner of which shall be prescribed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue,... ...the amount of his or her annual income,... liable to be assessed,... and the same so declared shall be received as the sum upon which duties are to be assessed and collected.”"
        So regardless of what and how a payer reports, it's on me and you to state the truth about ones activities. Receiving SS benefits is taxable, pay for work as a common right is not. One negates the other.
        Yes good ole canning. Homemade pickles? Grandpa had a small garden an man o man the goodness. No GMO no monsatan just healthy food. Muscadine wine! Only threat back then was turtles. Can't blame them for liking tomatoes.

      • jesse jamesjesse james commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        So what is it Brainy?
        Is earning 3121(a) "wages" an excise activity or not?

        You claim "General has lil bearing on the activity" but the law states earning 3121(a) is a taxable activity.
        Its a free country......you have every right to think the way you like.

        Theres no reason to go any further with this discussion....I cant open your eyes beyond what Pete says is taxable activity....and I'm not going to attempt to even try.

        Good luck Brainy...
        I have better things to do...the garden crops are coming in so its the start of canning and preserving and cool enough to finish siding my house and pour some concrete sidewalks I've been putting off....and shut down is fast approaching so I'll be working 50plus hours for the next 2 to 3 months.
        You have my email address.....when you have questions just email me and I'll try to give you an answer the best that I can.

      • johnthetaxistjohnthetaxist commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        We interrupt this fake discussion (Famspear talking to his 2 personas, jessejames & BrainyFart76, who you'll notice cannot post their personal documents on top off Pete's book because they don't own it, never paid for a copy; they're disinfo agents not CtC Warriors) to announce that your right to demand & receive LAWFUL MONEY is alive and well.

        Today I went to a new bank and deposited a paycheck, the backside of which looked like this: http://jesse2012.com//boaCHECK.jpg
        No signature; just the rubber stamp. The teller seemed unsure of the endorsement and called someone on the phone. After some back & forth the check was deposited, unsigned, as-is. I deposited LAWFUL MONEY, not Federal Reserve credit. This makes the pay UN-privileged gain, NON-federal income, and not subject to Title 26, with no requirement for a return of income.

        Yes folks, you too can become a 7 YEAR NON-TAXPAYER! Just like Johnny:
        http://jesse2012.com//SSA_E14.jpg

      • BrainySmurf76BrainySmurf76 commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I think a W2 and 1099-misc are included in "information returns ". I'll study up on it.
        All this information is helpful. Ya know, I think you jesse james aren't against Peter Hendrickson, I bet have a lot of respect for his work. What vibe I sense is you're sick of how those who've read his book get solely hung up on whether or not they're a Gov employee or not. That is an easy thing to get stuck on. Not even Peter says such, just that is a basis for other methods to break down whether one is liable. Even Peter states something like a private worker can receive taxable income. Even in his case where you say a W4 was presented, what that says is the W4 gave the payer the go-ahead to report his payments as "wages" but I say that in General has lil bearing on the activity. Even though SS is the excise activity, until one receives SS payments, there is no 'profit or gain' yet. The SS connection sure does give the appearance of one being paid as a Gov "employee" but that's all on the payer. Still doesn't make the work a taxable activity. To me it's a technical vs general thing. You're correct on the W4 SS nexus "wage" reporting.
        How's this you ask? Because SS is taken as a tax so the laws apply. So when one has no liability, filing (should) gets the amounts reported returned because they're overpayments. Because many withhold in case a liability pops up which can happen on those who aren't liable.
        But like I said, many who follow what's seen on LH do get hung up on their status instead of searching for the cause. Now 1 and seemingly only 1 johnthetaxist is hung up on what he calls his FRN's. He's an alleged CtC Warrior. It's kinda humorous but yet so sad seeing him implode.

      • jesse jamesjesse james commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Yeah...I used 42usc 1983 to get the attention of my employer that I wasn't fooling around and to educate him that he was committing a tort.

        26usc 7434 doesn't apply to you Brainy....these are for information returns (1040)

      • jesse jamesjesse james commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Brainy have you researched the Privacy act for the 1099 misc....... http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1099gi.pdf "
        Look on page 19. Section 6109 and its regulations apply.
        That means disclosure (administrative) regulation 301.6109-1(d) applies where you do not have to participate in Social Security where the payer doesn't issue a 1099.
        The payer like an employer has committed a tort against you when they make you file a W4 or issue a 1099.

      • BrainySmurf76BrainySmurf76 commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        "The payor doesn't understand a 1099 is only when a contractor wants to participate in Social Security under "self-employment". "

        So how does the payer or payor wind up using a 1099? I may need to go ask for the "self employment" forms to see the connection. Because at the end of the day it is left up to me then there has to be a connection. I'm being erroneously included? Let me whip this "26 USC § 7434
        "(a) In general
        If any person willfully files a fraudulent information return with respect to payments purported to be made to any other person, such other person may bring a civil action for damages against the person so filing such return."
        out again.

      • jesse jamesjesse james commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        The payer has automatically assumed the 1099 is issued mandatorily when it is not. The payor doesn't understand a 1099 is only when a contractor wants to participate in Social Security under "self-employment".
        Like the W4 the employer automatically assumes "wages" means everything when in fact it only means earnings in respect to 3121(b) "employment".
        The monies reported on a 1099 are only in respect to 3121(b) "employment".
        Outside of Social Security a 1099 and a W4 are not legally required.

      • BrainySmurf76BrainySmurf76 commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Another re-post so it doesn't get buried in the johnthetaxist b.s.

        http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1099msc.pdf
        "Trade or business reporting only. Report on Form 1099-MISC only when payments are made in the course of your trade or business. Personal payments are not reportable. You are engaged in a trade or business if you operate for gain or profit."
        See that last part 'profit or gain' is misleading as it makes it appears any company that's paid is that example. But we see from 1862 to today that it was all referenced when someone was paid privileged monies in the course of some Gov Federal function. It's even defined 7701(a)(26)
        "(26) Trade or business
        The term “trade or business” includes the performance of the functions of a public office."

        So what makes the private sector payer issue payments on a 1099-misc? I see the W4 SS connection but don't remember what I signed way back when. What did I do, if any, to cause my earnings to be reported on 1099-misc? If SS is the link but I'm responsible, then where's the SS connection there? Did it come via a W4 but left it to me to determine all expenses and deductions then pay SS based on what's left?

        Here's one that needs to be used more often. Especially after one makes it known to the payer they are coercing one into the tax scheme.
        26 USC § 7434
        "(a) In general
        If any person willfully files a fraudulent information return with respect to payments purported to be made to any other person, such other person may bring a civil action for damages against the person so filing such return.

        And lastly this http://www.losthorizons.com/Newsletter/MythBusters/SimsAhrens.pdf
        From 1925 it's an excellent read on 'profit or gain' aka the privilege tax.

      ← Previous 1 3 4 5 334 335

      Feedback and Knowledge Base