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.

8,786 votes
Sign in
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 →


    Sign in
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      I agree to the terms of service
      Signed in as (Sign out)
      • johnthetaxistjohnthetaxist commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Great webinar here:

        The banksters have rigged the paper price of silver below the cost of production. This is the End Game! Federal Reserve currency in hospice on life support and this could be your last chance to exchange 'em for real money. Demand for SILVER has never been higher -- and supply is tight.

      • BrainySmurf76BrainySmurf76 commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Man that Trevor Knight OU quarterback is great!
        Good post there johnthetaxist. Evil doers don't care how they get the dumb masses to panic via fake crisis actors (drills) or an actual real event as long as they can look like heroes. Shame how some people will start things to justify their jobs.

      • BrainySmurf76BrainySmurf76 commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Sorry, johnthetaxist, that's not true. It's a public thing and when i work for money, it now is mine. ALL MINE!!! The tax on money I'll say is credit. Remember, the income tax was way before FRN's. Using your thinking, FRN's would've nullified the income tax.

      • johnthetaxistjohnthetaxist commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Everyone fights the banking cartel in their own way. Some with BITCOIN, some with the MORTGAGE, some with LAWFUL MONEY. The disturbing relationship between the "income" tax and the Federal Reserve" is the tie between them. How do we know? Because those who refuse to endorse private credit from the FR easily beat the IRS! Just like I did. http://ctcwarrior.com/slavefree.jpg

        " if anyone .. accepts this private credit and uses it to purchase goods and services, the user voluntarily incurs the obligation requiring him to make a return of income whereby a portion of the income is collected by the IRS and delivered to the Federal Reserve banksters. Actually the federal income tax imparts two separate obligations: the obligation to file a return and the obligation to abide by the Internal Revenue Code. The obligation to make a return of income for using private credit is recognized in law as an irrecusable obligation, which according to 'Bouvier's Law Dictionary' (1914 ed.), is "a term used to indicate a certain class of contractual obligations recognized by the law which are imposed upon a person without his consent and without regard to any act of his own." This is distinguished from a recusable obligation which, according to Bouvier, arises from a voluntary act by which one incurs the obligation imposed by the operation of law. The voluntary use of private credit is the condition precedent which imposes the irrecusable obligation to file a tax return. If private credit is not used or rejected, then the operation of law which imposes the irrecusable obligation lies dormant and cannot apply. "

      • BrainySmurf76BrainySmurf76 commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Btw, y'all like good talk radio that makes you think, then check out Clyde Lewis show Ground Zero. Kxl 101 Oregon and affiliates in other markets. Just search and listen online too.

      • BrainySmurf76BrainySmurf76 commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Good info there Jesse James (anonymous). SS is a privilege that can't be denied a worker nor forced upon. But it's bothersome how the forms work their way into private contracts where the payer thinks they have to have a W-4. The old "we don't know what it all means, sign it anyway".

      • johnthetaxistjohnthetaxist commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Silver Eagles October Sales Rapidly Accelerate, Most Year to Date

        "This intense increase in physical demand can only continue on for so long given limited supplies. The manipulators can attack and pillage the paper market all they want. The real market is in the physical market, and although contained for the time being by the paper market, it will one day break free. This break will cause a price acceleration that will have you sitting in your seats stunned."

      • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Thank you Ken.
        However I must say...a 1099 isn't generated by reason of "trade or business".
        Its generated because of being "self-employed".
        "Employment" is defined for reason of the private sector in the Social Security Act.
        What I was looking for was to see if you were truly educated or just passing a premise concocted by Mr. Hendrickson.
        Once the third party sends the 1096 to the IRS they send amounts reported to the SSA to credit the appropriate SS account.
        The 1096 and the W3 are essentially the same except that with earning "wages" the employer deducts the money from the person participating in SS to the IRS via a W3.
        A 1096 is also reported by the payer to the IRS, but the payee must file and pay the taxes himself vs the employer deducting and withholding.
        Only real difference is the IRS gets the money first and then sends the info onto the SSA.

        The bottom line is without Social Security generating info to credit a SS account theres no requirement to report anything to the IRS or the SSA.....and that's your difference between a "taxpayer" from a "non-taxpayer".

      • Ken SeaburyKen Seabury commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        In response to BrainySmurf76:

        Thank you for your kind words, but I believe that things like this should be done by all rank-and-file CtC Warriors. From what I've seen so far, johnthetaxist doesn't appear to be anything like RetSquid.

      • Ken SeaburyKen Seabury commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        In response to johnthetaxist:

        I think it's important to realize that the IRS often uses out-of-context excerpts of the Code version of the law to assert authority it simply doesn't have. Today's Internal Revenue Code, although Constitutional, is prima facie law. In this context, the United States Supreme Court and lower Federal courts have defined this very important legal term for us:

        "By 1 U.S.C. § 54 (a) [now 1 U.S.C. § 204(a)], the Code establishes "prima facie" the laws of the United States. But the very meaning of "prima facie" is that the Code cannot prevail over the Statutes at Large when the two are inconsistent."
        Stephan v. United States, 319 US 423 - Supreme Court (1943)

        ”We note that the statute as codified in the United States Code refers to "any form of reconsiderations," with the last word being in the plural. The version of § 10(c) as currently enacted, however, uses the singular "reconsideration." See this note, supra, at 138. We quote the text as enacted in the Statutes at Large. See Stephan v. United States,319 U. S. 423, 426 (1943) ("[T]he Code cannot prevail over the Statutes at Large when the two are inconsistent").”
        Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137 - Supreme Court (1993)

        "Much of defendant's argument rests on language that has been quoted from the United States Code, rather than from the law itself. The Code establishes prima facie what the laws of the United States are. It is so provided in section 204, title 1, of the Code. Section 112, title 1, of the Code provides, however, that the United States Statutes at Large "shall be legal evidence of laws * * * in all the courts of the United States * * *."
        Best Foods v. United States, 147 F. Supp. 749 - Customs Court, 3rd Div. (1956)

        "Unless Congress affirmatively enacts a title of the United States Code into law, that title is only "prima facie" evidence of the law, see 1 U.S.C. § 204(a) (1982); "the very meaning of `prima facie' is that the Code cannot prevail over the Statutes at Large when the two are inconsistent.""
        Preston v. Heckler, 734 F. 2d 1359 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit (1984)

        Therefore, we must look to the Statutes at Large to determine if there are any inconsistencies between today's Code and the actual law. Congress has written a comprehensive Code Derivation Table for this specific purpose:


        In the initial pages of 26 U.S.C., you can also find the derivation tables that point to the Statutes at Large, but it is not as comprehensive.

        Here's a link to Volume 53 of the Statutes at Large:


        The body of law behind the link above is the ultimate authority regarding this matter. It is more transparent in its nature, and reveals explicit limitations on the levy authority as well as the audit/examination authority. Today's Internal Revenue Code is merely the current representative codification of the Statutes at Large. Anyone at the IRS threatening any administrative action in their notices must be made aware of the limitations of their lawful authority:

        “Persons dealing with the government are charged with knowing government statutes and regulations, and they assume the risk that government agents may exceed their authority and provide misinformation.”
        Lavin v. Marsh, 644 F.2d 1378 9th CA. (1981)

        “Whatever the form in which the government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes the risk of having ascertained that he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority.”
        Federal Crop Ins. Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 U.S. Supreme Court (1947).

      • Ken SeaburyKen Seabury commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        In response to Anonymous:

        A Form 1099 is transmitted by a Form 1096 that is often erroneously completed and sent in to the IRS from by a non-Federally-connected, private-sector entity, that believes it is making payments to a "trade or business," which is a statutorily-defined term. Such payments do not qualify under the statutory definition of that of a 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(26) "trade or business." In fact, if you look at the instructions for a Form 1099, you'll see that it is intended for "trade or business" reporting only.

        26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(26)
        The term "trade or business" includes the performance of the functions of a public office.
        Our Federal tax laws are written in black-and-white. It is only the statutorily-defined "trade or business" in which payments must be reported.

        Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service has no independent knowledge of non-Federally-connected, private-sector activities independently of what is erroneously reported to them. As indicated previously, erroneous information returns are not conclusive evidence of the receipt of taxable "income."

      • BrainySmurf76BrainySmurf76 commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Hello Ken. Johnthetaxist is the now banned Homie on LH Forum as well as being banned under other names. Ken, you're doing a great thing on YouTube spreading information about the fascinating truth about taxation in America.

      • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Hey Ken...what do you think causes a 1099?
        What or who receives the info on the 1099?
        And why?

        The IRS isn't the only government entity that receives the info on the 1099 and enters it into the government system.
        What system do you think requires the info logged on the 1099?

        We can argue statutory semantics all day, but who is the other government agency besides the IRS that records the info in the system?

      • johnthetaxistjohnthetaxist commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I agree the 1099s do not create tax liability & this is confirmed by my 7-year success as a NONtaxpayer even though I received 1099s for those NON-taxed years:


        However, sometimes the IRS moves forward, assuming you had taxable income, WITHOUT a Certificate of Assessment. Of course this hasn't happened to me as I redeem LAWFUL MONEY, but what if it happens to you? What is your plan to deal with that potentiality?

      • Ken SeaburyKen Seabury commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Information returns sent to the IRS by one's workplace do not constitute conclusive evidence of the receipt of taxable "income," as the Federal court decision below underscores this fact:

        "Defendants are correct that the 1099s, on their own, do not create tax liability. Form 1099 is an informational return, filed by a third party to the relationship between the IRS and the taxpayer, which reports income as that third party *believes* it to be. The Internal Revenue Code makes it clear that a Form 1099 is not the final word on what a taxpayer's taxable income is. As provided in 26 U.S.C. § 6201(d):"

        "In any court proceeding, if a taxpayer asserts a reasonable dispute with respect to any item reported on an information return ... by a third party ... the [IRS] shall bear the burden of producing reasonable and probative information concerning such deficiency in addition to such information return."

        "The Tax Court has held that a Form 1099 *is insufficient, on its own, to establish a taxpayer's taxable income.* See Estate of Gryder v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-141, 1993 WL 97427, 65 T.C.M. (CCH) 2298, T.C.M. (RIA) 93,141 (1993), citing Portillo v. Commissioner, 932 F.2d 1128 (5th Cir.1991). See also Portillo v. Commissioner, 988 F.2d 27, 29 (5th Cir. 1993) (a Form 1099 is "insufficient to form a rational foundation for the tax assessment against the [taxpayers in this case]."). Thus, while a Form 1099 can serve as the basis for the inception of an IRS investigation, it cannot and does not, on its own, create tax liability or establish how much income the taxpayer actually received."
        Daines v. ALCATEL, SA, 105 F. Supp. 2d 1153 - Dist. Court, ED Washington (2000)


        26 U.S.C. § 6201

        (d) Required reasonable verification of information returns

        In any court proceeding, if a taxpayer asserts a reasonable dispute with respect to any item of income reported on an information return filed with the Secretary under subpart B or C of part III of subchapter A of chapter 61 by a third party and the taxpayer *has fully cooperated with the Secretary* (including providing, within a reasonable period of time, access to and inspection of all witnesses, information, and *documents* within the control of the taxpayer as reasonably requested by the Secretary), *the Secretary shall have the burden of producing reasonable and probative information concerning such deficiency in addition to such information return.*

        In fact, other than declaring a taxable amount on your filed Form 1040 and not paying it, the only other definitive, conclusive evidence of a tax liability would be through a 26 U.S.C. § 6203 Certificate of Assessment indicating a balance of greater than zero.

        "For the condition precedent of liability to be met, *there must be a lawful assessment, either a voluntary one by the taxpayer or one procedurally proper by the IRS.* Because this country's income tax system is based on *voluntary self-assessment,* rather than distraint, *Flora v. United States,* 362 U.S. 145, 176, 80 S.Ct. 630, 646-47, 4 L.Ed.2d 623 (1960), *the Service may assess the tax only in certain circumstances and in conformity with proper procedures."*
        Bothke v. Terry, 713 F. 2d 1405, at 1414 (1983).

      ← Previous 1 3 4 5 352 353

      Feedback and Knowledge Base