First, I apologize for sounding like I'm referring you to paying anyone, as my intent was to redirect discussion to (a) your own labor and study resources and (b) network resources you trust. The issue is complex enough that the government admits several hours are needed to understand the law and answer conscientiously; so the sovereign should be prepared to spend a few more hours than that if there are red flags indicating uncertainties in aspects of the law.
If the sovereign citizen decides that paying the (expletive) tax is better than risk of emerods, well, the citizen is free that way too. I'm talking to those who want to take on the responsibility of sovereignty.
People on your porch are handled no differently based on different stinking badges. Sovereigns know how to handle professional appointments, and unprofessional ones. One should generally prepare one's own "arguments" rather than rely on canned packages; rely on the law and the facts instead.
What you're asking more directly is how to deal with correspondence and calls asking for more information. They are handled by continuing to give the same information you've given, without variance or hasty contradiction, proving your beliefs are sincere because they haven't changed. (Note, every fiery standoff attributed to tax disagreement arose because of collateral issues, not because of someone unambiguously and consistently testifying the same beliefs and facts.) The IRS can threaten fees but they do not have the power to assess them without complex process and a history of resistance such as nonfiling; if your study of the law indicates a sincere belief that the fees are mistaken, they are handled similarly to other corrections of error, by stating the facts and law that apply to the alleged fees. I am not aware of anyone being charged with evasion for filing conscientiously. The risk of being charged falsely with something else is not much different from the risk of getting charged falsely for upsetting some public servant nowadays, so establishing sincere understanding of the tax laws and belief as to their application to the facts is essential and sufficient defense before God and man.
Not all money received is income, and not all income is federal-nexus income. If you believe money received is not income, you say so and explain your reasons; income need not be zero, it is to be calculated according to the law. Good reasons for your belief about the definition of income have been proposed here before, and I've agreed with good reasons and (as here) debunked bad reasons. Sovereigns are prepared to do the mildest legwork to convince themselves from multiple witnesses, to avoid reliance on other individuals or compounded danger to any one person.
What you describe demand a very high level of knowing laws. If you are into all that pile of papers and learned juridical argo, you have very good chances to become a lawyer and just compensate all possible taxes with money you coud earn for a lawyer services.
If your unwillingness to pay taxes is not based on money, but you just don't want to pay anything to the state for ideological reasons, then things will eat all your time. Say, you buy a car, and as a sovereign citizen don't need license plates and driver license. Each meeting with road police will cost you months of your life to dismiss all charges. So, you need some source of money for living, buying car and all that stuff. But if you have such endless source of free money, then you are definitely not an ordinary person with a job and all that stuff. Probably, you could exist in such state, but does such existence in permanent juridical battles really worth it? Your activity will produce salaries for many people who will pay additional taxes. And it is qestionable, if that amount of additional tax will be lower than the tax you had to pay. Eventually state could receive even more taxes than if you just paid yours, which is obviously contradicts your goal. You will create jobs and so taxes instead of minimizing them.
Really, I don't see any point to prefer such weird way of living over, say, going guerilla capitalism with just hiding your income from any possible surveillance. Yes, you will not be able to buy, say, latest car from dealer, but do you really need it?
And last but not least thing, that rises moral question - there is some services that even worst state provide for citizens, like roads, water, rescue in disaster and so on. Not most expensive things, of course, but they are not free, and people, who keep them, deserve salary for their job. Basically all that things are paid with taxes. And there is no way (AFAIK) to pay for that things directly. Just no any mechanism exist for that. Will it be honest thing for sovereign citizen to use all that things for free?
Yep, individuals make their own decisions about things like licenses too, unrelated question; each decision is to be made on one's own conscience. My conscience chooses the hills I fight on.
Your argument that tax avoidance may create greater net taxes is the broken window fallacy debunked by Frederic Bastiat.
Hard libertarians reject government mandates for roads, water, and rescue on the grounds they should be opt-out and there are private ways to do everything better than publicly; that too is a conscience issue.
So, overall, the person who realizes the duties of sovereignty does indeed face all these questions, and decides them each sovereignly.
First, I apologize for sounding like I'm referring you to paying anyone, as my intent was to redirect discussion to (a) your own labor and study resources and (b) network resources you trust. The issue is complex enough that the government admits several hours are needed to understand the law and answer conscientiously; so the sovereign should be prepared to spend a few more hours than that if there are red flags indicating uncertainties in aspects of the law.
If the sovereign citizen decides that paying the (expletive) tax is better than risk of emerods, well, the citizen is free that way too. I'm talking to those who want to take on the responsibility of sovereignty.
People on your porch are handled no differently based on different stinking badges. Sovereigns know how to handle professional appointments, and unprofessional ones. One should generally prepare one's own "arguments" rather than rely on canned packages; rely on the law and the facts instead.
What you're asking more directly is how to deal with correspondence and calls asking for more information. They are handled by continuing to give the same information you've given, without variance or hasty contradiction, proving your beliefs are sincere because they haven't changed. (Note, every fiery standoff attributed to tax disagreement arose because of collateral issues, not because of someone unambiguously and consistently testifying the same beliefs and facts.) The IRS can threaten fees but they do not have the power to assess them without complex process and a history of resistance such as nonfiling; if your study of the law indicates a sincere belief that the fees are mistaken, they are handled similarly to other corrections of error, by stating the facts and law that apply to the alleged fees. I am not aware of anyone being charged with evasion for filing conscientiously. The risk of being charged falsely with something else is not much different from the risk of getting charged falsely for upsetting some public servant nowadays, so establishing sincere understanding of the tax laws and belief as to their application to the facts is essential and sufficient defense before God and man.
Not all money received is income, and not all income is federal-nexus income. If you believe money received is not income, you say so and explain your reasons; income need not be zero, it is to be calculated according to the law. Good reasons for your belief about the definition of income have been proposed here before, and I've agreed with good reasons and (as here) debunked bad reasons. Sovereigns are prepared to do the mildest legwork to convince themselves from multiple witnesses, to avoid reliance on other individuals or compounded danger to any one person.
What you describe demand a very high level of knowing laws. If you are into all that pile of papers and learned juridical argo, you have very good chances to become a lawyer and just compensate all possible taxes with money you coud earn for a lawyer services.
If your unwillingness to pay taxes is not based on money, but you just don't want to pay anything to the state for ideological reasons, then things will eat all your time. Say, you buy a car, and as a sovereign citizen don't need license plates and driver license. Each meeting with road police will cost you months of your life to dismiss all charges. So, you need some source of money for living, buying car and all that stuff. But if you have such endless source of free money, then you are definitely not an ordinary person with a job and all that stuff. Probably, you could exist in such state, but does such existence in permanent juridical battles really worth it? Your activity will produce salaries for many people who will pay additional taxes. And it is qestionable, if that amount of additional tax will be lower than the tax you had to pay. Eventually state could receive even more taxes than if you just paid yours, which is obviously contradicts your goal. You will create jobs and so taxes instead of minimizing them.
Really, I don't see any point to prefer such weird way of living over, say, going guerilla capitalism with just hiding your income from any possible surveillance. Yes, you will not be able to buy, say, latest car from dealer, but do you really need it?
And last but not least thing, that rises moral question - there is some services that even worst state provide for citizens, like roads, water, rescue in disaster and so on. Not most expensive things, of course, but they are not free, and people, who keep them, deserve salary for their job. Basically all that things are paid with taxes. And there is no way (AFAIK) to pay for that things directly. Just no any mechanism exist for that. Will it be honest thing for sovereign citizen to use all that things for free?
Yep, individuals make their own decisions about things like licenses too, unrelated question; each decision is to be made on one's own conscience. My conscience chooses the hills I fight on.
Your argument that tax avoidance may create greater net taxes is the broken window fallacy debunked by Frederic Bastiat.
Hard libertarians reject government mandates for roads, water, and rescue on the grounds they should be opt-out and there are private ways to do everything better than publicly; that too is a conscience issue.
So, overall, the person who realizes the duties of sovereignty does indeed face all these questions, and decides them each sovereignly.