Within 4-6 years of one's becoming a nonfiler and ignoring accumulating information returns, the IRS is empowered step by step to make assumptions (don't let it) that put you on the hook for their largest estimates plus all fees. Since you voluntarily refused to address the information accumulated, the law is that you volunteered for them to file for you. If you know of exceptions in the long run, great, they may exist, but the IRS also algorithmically decides who to go after to attempt to collect from. Contract theory will not help you because the law allows them to assume social contracts in cases such as described.
Everyone should assess what taxes they owe and report and pay them voluntarily, including those many who owe zero tax. To encourage nonfiling on an unproven theory such as contract is to fall into the prearranged trap of the info returns that has destroyed lives like that of Joe Lewis. It's true that filing has its own risks, notably that the IRS may decline to believe that you believe your own testimony, but sincere belief and pursuit of truth is its own defense and will get you past all the traps. Abrogation of one's noblesse oblige as a sovereign will not get you past traps set for those sovereigns.
If you have an income at or below poverty level, they may leave you alone for not filling. But once you have any meaningful income, they will come for you. Typically mentally ill and drug addicts that fall into that category and they don't want to be stuck with the attorney's fees for someone who could never pay.
Extended sovereignty responsibilities are not for the impoverished, they must find ways of freedom from poverty, which is a benevolence question for other sovereigns. They are not for the ill or addicted, who are in the same category.
The sovereign earning money has a responsibility in this country to research the nature of income and to declare, when there is testimony of income, whether the testimony is accurate or not. If you're earning money but not federal-nexus income, they can't come for you; they can only pretend you're earning federal-nexus income and hope you deign to consent, or if you're especially annoying to them they can use illegal force, which is another separable question.
Frenchmen in Paris earn money, but it's not federal-nexus income for the US; they must follow their own laws. Since some money earned is not federal-nexus income, we have a responsibility in following our own laws to determine what money is and isn't. It's never been in the government's financial interest to help us sovereigns make this determination.
All the People I know who did it have a great future and have been saving tons of money.
Within 4-6 years of one's becoming a nonfiler and ignoring accumulating information returns, the IRS is empowered step by step to make assumptions (don't let it) that put you on the hook for their largest estimates plus all fees. Since you voluntarily refused to address the information accumulated, the law is that you volunteered for them to file for you. If you know of exceptions in the long run, great, they may exist, but the IRS also algorithmically decides who to go after to attempt to collect from. Contract theory will not help you because the law allows them to assume social contracts in cases such as described.
Everyone should assess what taxes they owe and report and pay them voluntarily, including those many who owe zero tax. To encourage nonfiling on an unproven theory such as contract is to fall into the prearranged trap of the info returns that has destroyed lives like that of Joe Lewis. It's true that filing has its own risks, notably that the IRS may decline to believe that you believe your own testimony, but sincere belief and pursuit of truth is its own defense and will get you past all the traps. Abrogation of one's noblesse oblige as a sovereign will not get you past traps set for those sovereigns.
If you have an income at or below poverty level, they may leave you alone for not filling. But once you have any meaningful income, they will come for you. Typically mentally ill and drug addicts that fall into that category and they don't want to be stuck with the attorney's fees for someone who could never pay.
Extended sovereignty responsibilities are not for the impoverished, they must find ways of freedom from poverty, which is a benevolence question for other sovereigns. They are not for the ill or addicted, who are in the same category.
The sovereign earning money has a responsibility in this country to research the nature of income and to declare, when there is testimony of income, whether the testimony is accurate or not. If you're earning money but not federal-nexus income, they can't come for you; they can only pretend you're earning federal-nexus income and hope you deign to consent, or if you're especially annoying to them they can use illegal force, which is another separable question.
Frenchmen in Paris earn money, but it's not federal-nexus income for the US; they must follow their own laws. Since some money earned is not federal-nexus income, we have a responsibility in following our own laws to determine what money is and isn't. It's never been in the government's financial interest to help us sovereigns make this determination.