FAQ: What is the proper attitude to get best results when dealing with the IRS?

By ftsig-admin | September 19, 2025

QUESTION:

What is the proper attitude to get best results when dealing with the IRS?

ANSWER:

  1. Be quick to agree with your adversary: Matt. 5:25
  2. Avoid inflammatory or emotional language. These cause you to slam the door in your own face.
  3. Stick to facts, law, and evidence you can prove in court.
  4. Agree with:
    4.1. 26 U.S.C. code
    4.2. 26 C.F.R. Regulations
    4.3. IRS Publications
    4.4. The courts
    4.5. The IRS website
  5. Remember:
    5.1. They are the Merchant under U.C.C. 2-104(1).
    5.2. You are the Buyer seeking their property under U.C.C. 2-103(1)(a).
    5.3. The PUBLIC PROPERTY they are offering are the voluntary civil statuses they legislatively created and therefore OWN. This property is called a “privilege”. So long as it is “in your hands”, possession, or benefit, they make the rules or “laws”. In this case, “laws”, “rules”, and “franchise contract” are synonymous.
    5.4. You acquire that property through elections (choices).
    5.5. They are the only ones who can write or dictate rules or conditions on using their PUBLIC property (civil statuses), meaning privileges.
    5.6. You are essentially playing a game of “mother may I?” with their PUBLIC property and privileges.
  6. Proceed from the presumption that:
    6.1. They cannot write laws, regulations, rules, or definitions relating to property or rights that are foreign, private, or part of a “foreign estate” under I.R.C. 7701(a)(31). If they could, they would be STEALING private property, which they know they can’t do because the Fifth Amendment forbids it.
    6.2. IRS mostly tells the truth, but never the WHOLE truth. They very deliberately hide third rail issues with equivocation and omission.
  7. More transparency is better. Otherwise IRS will think you are either hiding something, ignorant, fearful, or all the above. That is blood in the water for sharks.
  8. Every use of the word “You” in their forms refers to those engaged in the I.R.C. 7701(a)(26) privileged “trade or business” excise taxable activity who is therefore operating in a PUBLIC status as an I.R.C. 6671(b) and 7343 “person” or I.R.C. 7701(a)(30) “U.S. Person”. It does NOT mean EVERYONE reading the publication. This sort of deception is called a “Barnum Statement”. This is a dishonest marketing technique to grow their audience beyond what the law permits.
  9. When trying to win a particular dispute administratively, you have to eat the elephant one byte at a time. Get all players focusing on the same point. Trying to just say you’re not subject and blah, blah, blah just gets dismissed. You have to reach agreements on small matters, and then secure beach head. Win battles—win the war. Taxability and stopping withholding are bigger issues, the implications of which depend on resolving smaller, definitional disputes.

Government focuses all their publications and court rulings on an activity or event instead of the actual USPI so they can disguise what property they are RENTING for a fee called “taxes”, which is USPI. This:

  1. Takes the focus off having to prove that you are a lawful target of their enforcement called a PUBLIC CIVIL “person”, “taxpayer”, etc. They HATE having to prove anything and can’t prove anything since they are not a fact witnesses with personal knowledge. They only “know” what you tell them under penalty of perjury under I.R.C. 6065.
  2. Avoids their burden of proving what specific property or consideration they provided so that you never catch on to what they are actually taxing so you can avoid it.
  3. Turns enforcement into a factual administrative event so they don’t have to prove what property or consideration they provided that gives them the authority to tax or regulate.
  4. Allows them to make unchallenged presumptions about the event that violate due process and the constitution and thereby enlarge their authority and powers.

However, when you as a Buyer deal with all IRS interactions as a commercial transaction involving property with them as the Merchant, all the subterfuge, implied consent, and “factual determinations” a judge can make dissolve, leaving them holding the bag and the burden of proving they provided consideration that gives rise to their authority to tax or regulate. They don’t EVER want that burden of proof because then you would know you have a choice and consent is in fact involved. This is a devious way to make the tax look INVOLUNTARY when in fact it is NOT. A thief never wants to provide or prove consideration and asking them to prove consideration is the equivalent of asking them to prove that they are NOT a thief.

The elephant in the room is always:

  1. Government/PUBLIC property called PRIVILEGES, and
  2. A commercial offer to you as the Buyer by the government as Merchant to use or benefit from said PUBLIC property or privilege, and
  3. Implied consent to the offer, thus producing the “quasi-contract” and
  4. A PRESUMPTION of your consent by acquiescence unless you state your intentions clearly.
  5. A SUPREME desire to NEVER :
    5.1. Inform you explicitly that you have a choice whether to accept the property involved.
    5.2. Have to PROVE that real qualifiable consideration or property is involved, because they never want the burden of proof and couldn’t meet it if they had to.

To further protect their revenue collection scheme through sophistry, judges call taxation a “quasi-contract” with the intent of shifting the burden of proof to you to prove that you DID NOT receive consideration, rather than them, that you DID receive consideration. The burden of proof on those avoiding a “quasi-contract” is “a failure of consideration”. They know full well that it is near impossible to prove a negative, so they will always win.

If you know these things, you become truly dangerous to the status quo.

EXAMPLE: Digital Assets Question on the 1040-NR tax return.

The 1040NR form contains a Y or N question about whether “you” have “Digital Assets”. The “you” they are talking about is the I.R.C. 6671(b) and 7343 public officer, not the private, constitutionally protected you. They are asking essentially WHAT you voluntarily connected to the office of person.

If you own PRIVATE and FOREIGN digital assets, the proper way to answer the question on Digital Assets is:

1. Answer: N. Make them PROVE they have jurisdiction over private. constitutionally protected property that is a foreign estate under I.R.C. 7701(a)(31).

2. Explanation on the 8275 form attached to the return:

Digital assets are “N” because:

a. Only property consensually connected to a “trade or business” in I.R.C. 7701(a)(26) or owned by those so engaged or originating from sources within the United States under I.R.C. 861 is reportable under I.R.C. 6041(a) or taxable under I.R.C. 871 to a nonresident alien American national.

b. References:
Frequently asked questions on virtual currency transactions
https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/frequently-asked-questions-on-virtual-currency-transactions
Pub 544
Notice 2014–21
https://www.irs.gov/irb/2014-16_IRB#NOT-2014-21

Posted in FAQs