Debunking IMF Translations Using NMF Codes

SOURCE:  Dan Meador group on

Debunking IMF Translations and Decodes Using NMF codes

I keep running into folks that say they know the IRS has secretly coded them as Narcotics kings; selling foreign insurance; builder of bus chassis or guns; or, possessive of Gift, Estate; Employee Payment Master File tax blocking series codes on their IMF. When I ask them how they know, they tell me they had their IMF translated or decoded by so-n-so and they said so.  Frequently I get calls from professionals attempting to validate what their clients are telling them.  In many cases I spend hours explaining the fallacy of the information contained on the ‘translation’ or ‘decode’ report.  We cannot expect the agency to respect our positions or provide a remedy when we walk in there and make patently absurd and false claims and accusations.   Folks, the agency makes enough mistakes and generates sufficient due process violations for us to deal with; we do not need exotic issues to compel attention or remedy.  In my humble opinion these frivolous, absurd and erroneous claims needs to stop and it needs to stop now.

To assist you, who are seeking the truth and respect it I am going to go through some simple basic facts of IMF.  If your ‘decoder;’ ‘translator;’ or whatever they call themselves doesn’t know, use, understand and respect these basics, then you should be wary.

 Master File Basics

Master Files are huge databases containing information on the filers of the particular forms recorded in that particular database.  Huh? 

  1. IMF the Individual Master File accepts only “Tax Class 2 – Individual, Fiduciary and Partnership Form 1040 series “income tax” filers.” 
  2. NMF – Non Master File records information that for varying reasons is not to be processed on any of the specific Master Files and can have all kinds of different tax classes in the base. 
  3. IRMF-Information Return Master File records only Information Returns filed on third parties, such as W-2 and 1099 forms.
  4. BMF-Business Master File – records only business returns from entities possessive of Employer Identification Numbers who are paying employees. 

These databases are literally “accounts receivable;” “inventory control;” and account histories.  The information from these Master Files: is accumulated for a variety of accounting reports; tracks the money; describes the physical location of the hardcopy document; and reflect all agency actions taken on the account.

It should be noted that each type of master file has it’s own codes and manuals to define and explain how the system works and why.  The codes for these systems are not interchangeable.  Codes for NMF cannot be used on IMF; they most likely have different definitions. 

Example:  a document code 10 on NMF means a Form 1040; on IMF the document code 10 means a fully paid Form 1040A; Big, big difference.  Can this be proven?  Sure.  Request an IMFOLT and it will show the Form 1040A; and the document code in the DLN will be a 10; and look in the LEM 3, it shows document code 09 as “other than full paid” Form 1040A and 10 as “full paid” Form 1040A.  LEM means Law Enforcement Manual.

I cannot stress this enough!  You cannot use a NMF manual or segment of a manual to define the codes on an IMF.  I defy those claiming otherwise to show me in PRINT by the IRS where these codes are interchangeable.  I am not interested in theories, claims or conspiracy concepts… I want to be shown in writing from the IRS and published by them; where the codes used on the various databases are interchangeable.  I have never found such a document or publication and I’ve looked; I’ve looked for over 10 years; it cannot be done.  You as a paying customer/client should demand to see the same PROOF that NMF codes can be put on an IMF.  Theories be damned folks..  We are compelled in a court or before the agency to provide documented and credible evidence; we have failed miserably to perform.  This type of claim creates major harm to our claim for a remedy.  



The information obtained upon request through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or Privacy Act (PA) requests relating to “systems of records” are responded to with computer printouts.  You are after all asking for information contained on a magnetic record; so they have to print it to provide it.  Logical right?  Sure it is.  Computer programs also control the printouts and the agency decided to call them “transcripts”.  We wont go into the word transcript now, but you should investigate that term for yourselves.  The IMF has many printouts available, however, the patriot community is generally interested in the IMF Complete or Specific.  These have recently become known as ‘non-sanitized’ transcripts.  The agency also prints an IMF literal (allegedly the sanitized) version.  The literal was not designed to hide anything, it’s just a simplified format.  The Complete and Specific reflect more information than the Literal.  No big conspiracy here, just differences in printouts based on varying needs for information and an attempt to accommodate the recipient.

Systems of Records

For our purposes I shall discuss the IMF, only, from this point further unless I specifically state otherwise.  Each entry must have a Master File Tax (MFT) code; correct SSN matched with the NAME CONTROL.  Any failure to enter the correct data is supposed to ‘unpost’ the suspect entry. Allegedly there are many computer checks and balances to insure that the recorded entries are correct

The Master File as a complete database is maintained in Martinsburg, Virginia.  All of the Service Centers either directly ‘connect’ to the mainframe or receive magnetic tapes from Martinsburg.  At regular intervals the Service Centers put their data entry on magnetic tape and send it to Martinsburg.  Martinsburg merges the new entries onto the Master File and makes new tapes to send back to the Service Centers.  Along with these update tapes the Martinsburg computer center sends reports and tapes of segmented files dealing with entries that for one reason or another did not post to the Master File and which must be investigated, corrected or deleted.  The Service Centers run merge programs to move the information from the Martinsburg computer to their computers.  In this way, the Service Centers maintain the ‘on hand’ control of the information and the Master File is allegedly always 100% correct. 

The name of the Service Center Computer System is Integrated Data Retrieval System – IDRS.  I suppose it is called that because it is the ‘go between’ system, which down and up loads information from and to the actual Master File System.

The Service Center also has subsystems some of which include but are not limited to AIMS, PCS, MACS, and ASFR.  Each of these subsystems functions independently of the others and is used by restricted segments of the service center.  Some of the subsystems also have another layer of systems.  In short the computer systems of the IRS form a labyrinth of interconnected computers; each performing specific tasks; each doing it’s work independent of the others and potentially ultimately merged.

Erroneous Translation – Decode

Now that you have some idea how the computer system works, we will go to the actual codes on the transcripts and their alleged meanings.

  1. Narcotics codes:  this generally stems from an MF STAT 03 with 5 indicator.  The Master File Status codes have dual definitions.  They can be either from Master File itself or from IDRS.  You can validate this by simply looking in the 6209 manual for the Master File Status codes and read the text just above definitions.  The  ‘02’ and ‘03’ codes have an ‘*’ which takes you to a subscript stating they have dual meanings.  If the Master File shows a Taxpayer Delinquency Inquiry – Investigation (TDI) or Taxpayer Delinquency Account (TDA) the MF STAT codes are IDRS codes.  Now the real fun begins.  For the exotic TDA and TDI definitions to accrue there must be a transaction code (TC) 148 with specific indicator entered on the IMF for each IDRS MF Stat code.  Unless you have obtained the specific documents relating to the entry you have no way of validating any claim regarding Narcotics or anything else.  It is that simple folks.  Absent the transaction code 148 with indicator, the MF STATs follow the ordinary definitions provided and merely identify the various computer paragraph notices sent out pursuant to the Inquiry (CP 515) and Investigation (CP 518).  Remember for each exotic definition claimed there has to be a transaction code with that indicator.  If your IMF has 4 of these MF STATs with dual definitions and your ‘translator’ says each has an exotic meaning, you need to find that number of TC 148’s on your record;  1 each.  The most common TC 148 indicator is the 2; which denotes a ‘non-filer.’  RRA98 says the agency can identify the non-filer; although they can no longer refer to the non-filer as an illegal tax protestor. 
  2. Exotic business claims:  These stemmed from an old AIMS manual and were changed in 1992.  Any provider still using AIMS exhibits from older manuals…  well… The codes were activity codes from the numeric range 530 and following.  In the 1992 AIMS manual the 530 and 501 series of definitions were switched.  It doesn’t matter why; what matters is the agency did it.  Why is not relevant!  Consequently, what were exotic activities are now the “Total Positive Income” delineators.  Go figure. 
  3. Document, Blocking Series and Transaction Code:  The 6209 manual provides these codes for the IMF and in some cases for the BMF and NMF.  Each grouping by MF structure is denoted as separate and distinct one from the other.  If these codes were interchangeable the agency would have one set of codes and that would be it.  Agency has provided separate codes, because they are NOT interchangeable.  I have looked at the Exhibits that several of these ‘translator-decoders’ use and the bulk of them consist of Non-Master File manuals or Non-Master File sections of the 6209.  This is WRONG information.

I am not perfect people; I make mistakes; I am not naming names or bashing others.  I am simply showing you what I know to be wrong and can be documented by using the appropriate manuals, statutes, regulations and publications. 

If you find information here indicative of what you have received from a provider, you do what you think best; don’t call me to gripe about it.  You may, however, seek validation.  I neither know the heart or mind of these providers; it isn’t up to me to judge them; it is up to me to provide the best information I know how and make you aware of it.  That is the single purpose for my commentary.