Home | News | Site Map | Search | Contact

The liberating truth about the "income" tax is turning those who would evade it

Every Which Way But Loose- Part III

 

Do you remember those old sci-fi movies (and numerous 'Lost in Space' and 'Star Trek' episodes) in which an evil robot or a computer collapses into terminal dysfunction after being presented with data that "does not compute"?  The machine would flail about dangerously for a bit (or smoke and shake, and threaten to explode) before finally going limp, silent and harmless.

"LOOK OUT, DOCTOR SMITH!!  DANGER!!  WARNING!!"

 

Some CtC Warriors are being drafted to play the part of the intrepid heroes of these space operas lately, with federal and state "income" tax agencies in the role of the neurotic robot.

SINCE AUGUST OF 2003, when the revelations of CtC were first published, tens of thousands of readers of 'Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America' have taken control of their own resources, in accordance with, and respect for, the law. The likely total amount reclaimed by these good Americans so far is upward of several billion dollars.

During the same period, the IRS has been engaged in a desperate struggle to regain its hold of fear and confusion over those now equipped with an understanding of the long-hidden secrets of the "income" tax, and to stop that understanding from spreading.  We have seen, for instance:

  •  A carefully inaccurate allusion to a typical CtC-educated filing sit as #1 on the IRS "Dirty Dozen" list for a year (then quietly get relocated to #5 and then #7 as CtC-educated filings merely increased, and continued to prevail, making the misdirection of the listing too obvious for the agency's comfort);

  •  Mis-directional ploys such as the "Questionnaire" discussed here;

We have also seen a number of revealing attempts by loose-cannon IRS staffers to persuade a CtC-educated filer to stand down.

IN THIS SERIES, we take a close look at many of these gimmicks, ploys and dodges. The action in these episodes will range from silly one-shot, quickly-abandoned agency stalls to drawn-out, elaborate efforts to resist or evade or discourage CtC-educated filers ending in climactic slap-downs of the law-defying tax agency.

One consistent feature of all of these episodes is the special clarity with which they illustrate the accuracy and completeness of what CtC reveals about the "income" tax. Unlike the vast majority of CtC-educated refunds and other victories in applying the law, in which the deep vetting to which every claim is subject is done out of view with no evidence of the process except the filing and the check or transcript, what happens in the cases highlighted in this series is unambiguously subsequent to close tax agency attention to the claim.

Thus, these cases present a wake-up splash of reality to those who struggle to persist in denial about the truth, completeness and correctness of CtC (some of whom actually argue with a straight face that the tens of thousands of complete refunds issued over more than eleven years now from the feds and more than three dozen state and local tax agencies are a sustained "slip through a crack"!).

These cases likewise present a wake-up splash of reality to those who struggle to avoid acknowledging the corruption of a state apparatus that persists in encouraging and exploiting widespread misunderstanding of the tax. The deniers of both varieties are faced with the simple and here unmistakable and undeniable fact that NOT ONE of these case would have gone the way they did from the moment the claims came under demonstrable agency scrutiny-- even just temporarily-- were everything I say about the tax not true.

Enjoy.

 

EVERY WHICH WAY BUT LOOSE- XII

 

About a year ago I posted the victory of CtC-Warrior Charles Gille over an IRS effort to disregard his filed testimony and collect an alleged "deficiency" in connection with 2002.  Charles actually had had two victories achieved both about the same time, and by way of the same sequence of events, the other being for 2003-- that's the one we'll add to the story now...

 

As had been previously noted in regard to the 2002 victory, after learning the truth about the "income" tax by reading CtC, Charles filed amended returns correcting previously-filed "ignorance tax" returns for 2002 and 2003, rebutting the 1099 "information returns" that asserted that Charles' earnings for those years were from taxable activities, and reclaiming the $30 he had paid-in against what he had previously imagined to be an outstanding liability.  The IRS, hating to see another American exit the pen, attempted to behave as though it had the authority to disregard the filings and calculated proposed "deficiencies", of which it duly notified Charles, giving him 90 days to contest the assertion in Tax Court.

 

Charles did just that:

 

 

Shortly afterward, Charles filed an amendment to this petition, rectifying his misreading of the ridiculously convoluted "treat as small tax case" election on the form above, and setting forth his petition with more specificity.  The "service" responded with a motion to the court to dismiss Charles' petition for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted", and seeking the imposition of penalties upon him for his temerity in challenging the asserted "deficiency".  Charles was instructed by the Tax Court judge to file another amended petition being more specific as to his positions.  He did-- explaining, for instance, that:

f.  Petitioner had originally reported receipts and expenses of his sign surveying business, as though he were an IRC 7701(a)(26) "trade or business".  This error was based upon Petitioner's ignorance at the time, and his false belief that the Internal Revenue Service was acting outside the boundaries of Constitutional law, and imposing taxes on the inherent right of each human being to support himself.  This was before Petitioner became aware that the Internal Revenue laws are carefully designed to require taxes only on legitimate objects of taxation, such as the type of activity set forth in the definition of the term "trade or business" found at 26 USC 7701(a)(26), that is, some form of government-created or -granted privilege, which can be properly subjected to an excise tax, the amount of the tax to be based upon the income derived from the taxable privileged activity.

Read Charles' 2nd amended petition here.

 

Eventually, though, on July 18, 2006, the Tax Court DID dismiss Charles' petition, while also denying the penalty sanctions sought by the IRS.  However...

 

As Charles wrote, describing the subsequent progress of events over the next two years:

 

I told the IRS Commissioner, "OK, fine.  I'll be happy to write you a check immediately, but first, just tell me the taxable activity that made me liable for an income tax."  He said, "Hmmm.  We'll get back to you."  Then I hear from IRS Atlanta, saying I owe the amount that the auditor said.  I tell them the same.  They say, "Hmmm.  We'll get back to you."  Same with IRS in Kansas City, Bensalem (PA), Memphis, and Philadelphia, then a private collection agency, then back through IRS in Ogden, to the Audit Reconsideration Unit in Memphis, which had me submit an Audit Reconsideration form.  Then IRS in Holtsville, NY, says they're working on it, and I should hear by the end of June.  Then nothing until mid-July, when they send:

 

 

 

 

Watch out for that robot!  I THINK IT'S GOING TO EXPLODE!!

***

 

Isn't it too bad everyone hasn't done like Charles, and read CtC-- the exclusive source of the complete, accurate and liberating truth about the "income" tax?  You can help change that, and thereby help transform America.  Click here to learn how (while you still can-- see below...).

 

EVERY WHICH WAY BUT LOOSE- XI

 

In April of 2008, CtC Warrior Forest Anderson filed an educated return reporting some interest and dividends received (all totaling less than the exemption amount), a modest loss on some other investments, and containing a rebuttal of a 1099-R which had alleged payments to him of a considerable amount of "trade or business"-related deferred earnings.  The letter below, which was attached to his filing, addressed this aspect of the filing (which can be seen in its entirety here):

 

April 09, 2008

 

Department of the Treasury

Internal Revenue Service Center

Fresno, CA 93888-0002

 

Re: TY2007 Return

 

Dear Sir/Madam:

 

Please find enclosed the original filing of my 2007 1040 individual tax return.  Please note that I have enclosed an attached Form 4852, due to the fact that my payer continues to issue incorrect and erroneous 1099-R information returns.

 

My payer has incorrectly listed payment amounts in 7(B)1 and 7(B)2a.  The amounts provided to you by my payer are in error and in dispute. 

 

Because of the limited space available on the Form 4852, please read the enclosed document titled, “My Erroneous 1099-R”. 

 

Sincerely,

 

Forest L. Anderson

 

Nearly a year later, in March of 2009, some loose-cannon scofflaw at the Fresno, California IRS office decided to test Forest's commitment to the rule of law (or maybe is just a poor reader...).  This law-defier cranked out a "CP2000" proposing changes to Forest's "account" to the tune of an $8168.00 liability for 2007, based on simply disregarding his filing:

 

 

Forest wasn't having any...  He promptly fired back with a "No, thanks!":

 

 

 ...and the following letter and enclosures:

 

     7008 1140 0004 1952 1900

                                                        March 27, 2009

From the desk of:

Forest L. Anderson

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

                                                                TIME SENSITIVE: RESPONSE REQUIRED

Department of the Treasury

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

5045 East Butler Avenue

Fresno, CA 93888-0021

Attention: Office of P. Rogers

 

Letter Number: CP2000

Taxpayer Identification Number 

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

RE Tax Form: 1040

Tax Year: December 31, 2007.

 

Dear Mr. Rogers:

 

Please place this letter, with the enclosed documents, in my administrative file.

 

I submitted my original TY2007 Form 1040, on April 10, 2008, by certified mail with return receipt #7007 0710 0005 5198 8637 to the Fresno Service Center.  My return included the following documents:

            1. Schedule B

            2. Schedule D

            3. 1 page letter

            4. Form 4852

            5. My Erroneous 1099-R

            6. Notarized Affidavit of Mailing

 

On April 18, 2008 I received the return receipt stamped: 2008 April 13 P 5:32 and received by: “SUBMISSION PROCESSING, IRS, FRESNO CA.

 

Wednesday, March 25, 2009, I received the IRS Notice: CP2000 dated 03-23-2009 (Photocopy enclosed).

 

Please confirm that you have the above documents numbered 1-6.

 

The CP2000 states that I did not include $2612 in interest in my 1040 return.

That is correct.

 

However, I did include $2925.22 in interest on my Schedule B.

 

I also included $1741.10 in dividends in part II of Schedule B.

 

I also entered $2925.22 in interest on line 8a of my 1040.

 

I also entered $1741.10 in dividends on line 9a of my 1040.

 

On the Schedule D Capitol Gains and Losses, I calculated that I had a Capitol Gain Loss of $2228.39 and entered -$2228.39 on the Schedule D.

 

As instructed, I then entered -$2228.39 on line 13 of my 1040.

 

Please read the one page letter I included with my 2007 return, and My Erroneous 1099-R.  Those two documents explain why I included the IRS designated Form 4852 to correct my erroneous 1099-R.

 

Thus, I entered 0.00 on line 16b of my 1040.

 

When these entries were added, my adjusted gross income was $2437.93.  I entered $2437.93 on line 37 of my 1040 return.

 

The adjusted gross income of $2437.93 is clearly less than my standard deduction of $6650.00.

 

I did not omit any interest or dividends in my return.

 

I did correct my erroneous 1099-R.

 

I want to thank you for bringing to my attention a mistake I did make when filing my 2007 1040.  I found that I used the wrong Form 4852 for 2007.  The form had been changed for 2007 and I used a previous incorrect form.  I have enclosed the correct 2007 Form 4852.

 

If the above information clarifies my 2007 return to your satisfaction, thus eliminating the need of pursuing any further TY2007 issues and/or issuing further threatening notices, please do not read further.

 

Otherwise please continue:

 

The CP2000 and an included publication titled The Examination Process (Examinations by Mail), inform me, that my 2007 return has been “examined” and ask me to agree to the changes that have been made to my return because of the examination process.  I do not agree with any of the changes and have so indicated, in STEP A, OPTION 3, of the Response Form.

 

Please permit me to gently inform you of the law relevant to examinations and summons.

 

I have enclosed a document of LEGAL NOTICE and an AFFIDAVIT OF LEGAL NOTICE with this letter that relate to your examination of my records [click here to see these docs- P. H.].  The document and the accompanying affidavit puts you on legal notice that I am not lawfully subject to examination/summons under the authority reflected at 26 USC 7602 et seq.  Any action taken which purports to apply that authority to me, or which is in cooperation with an action purporting to apply that authority to me which has been initiated by another, is unlawful, and will be construed as having been undertaken deliberately and in a personal capacityYou are advised to seek competent legal counsel.

 

I will further observe, solely for your edification, that USC Title 26 Section 7214(a) states that:

 

 (a) Unlawful acts of revenue officers or agents

             Any officer or employee of the United States acting in 

             connection with any revenue law of the United States -

        (1) who is guilty of any extortion or willful oppression under

             color of law; or

        (2) who knowingly demands other or greater sums than are

             authorized by law, or receives any fee, compensation, or

             reward, except as by law prescribed, for the performance of

             any duty; or

        (3) who with intent to defeat the application of any provision

             of this title fails to perform any of the duties of his

             office or employment; or

        (9) who demands, or accepts, or attempts to collect, directly

             or indirectly as payment or gift, or otherwise, any sum of

             money or other thing of value for the compromise,

             adjustment or settlement of any charge or complaint for any

             violation or alleged violation of law, except as expressly

             authorized by law so to do;

 

    shall be dismissed from office or discharged from employment and,

    upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or

    imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. The court may in its

    discretion award out of the fine so imposed an amount, not in

    excess of one-half thereof, for the use of the informer, if any,

    who shall be ascertained by the judgment of the court. The court

    also shall render judgment against the said officer or employee for

    the amount of damages sustained in favor of the party injured, to

    be collected by execution.

 

Further, each and every penalty that is imposed without any basis in law and fact, will be considered an “extortion or willful oppression under color of law” – a violation of 26 USC 7214(a) (1).

 

Further, 18 USC § 872 Extortion by officers or employees of the United States

 

Whoever, being an officer, or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, or representing himself to be or assuming to act as such, under color or pretense of office or employment commits or attempts an act of extortion, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; but if the amount so extorted or demanded does not exceed $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

 

Further, 18 USC § 876 Mailing threatening communications

 

(d) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value, knowingly so deposits or causes to be delivered, as aforesaid, any communication, with or without a name or designating mark subscribed thereto, addressed to any other person and containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another, or the reputation of a deceased person, or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

 

Please understand that none of these criminal offenses require that you’re involved directly and benefit from the crime.  That is to say, extorting money by threat, etc., is criminal even if it is only done as the agent of the direct beneficiary of the extorted money.  Thus, for a government agent to extort money by threat is a FELONY and to do so, where the extortion would result in a financial benefit to the government is a multiple FELONY.

 

Further, 26 USC § 6203 Method of assessment

 

The assessment shall be made by recording the liability of the taxpayer in the office of the Secretary in accordance with rules or regulations prescribed by the Secretary.  Upon request of the taxpayer, the Secretary shall furnish the taxpayer a copy of the record of the assessment.

 

Further, among the rules or regulations prescribed by the Secretary, per the directive reflected at 26 USC § 6203, we find:

 

26 CFR § 301.6203-1 Method of assessment

 

The district director and the director of the regional service center shall appoint one or more assessment officers.  The district director shall also appoint assessment officers in a Service Center servicing his district.  The assessment shall be made by an assessment officer signing the summary record of assessment.

 

Therefore, I request that the Secretary furnish me with an actual photocopy of my record of assessment within 30 days of the mailing date of this letter, April 17, 2009, with the signature of the assessment officer included, and an explicit statement that the reason for the request was both to establish the existence of the assessment, and to determine for myself the assessment’s complete compliance with all related provisions of law.

 

The making of this request is not to be considered or construed as an admission of “taxpayer” status or of liability for any tax or penalty, and that the refusal to cooperate with the request will be recognized as an acknowledgement that I am NOT, in fact, liable for the tax or penalty alleged to be due and owing or otherwise collectible in any manner on the Notice: CP2000 received, a copy of which is enclosed.  Please note:  An aggregate record will not satisfy my request, as compliance requires documentation sufficient to clearly establish my personal liability.

 

Also, please understand that a refusal to cooperate with my request for a record of assessment would be a violation of USC Title 26 Section 7214(a) (3).

 

My TY2007 Federal return is complete and correct to my knowledge and belief.  Please refer to the signed jurat on my TY2007 Form 1040 page 2, and the signed jurat on my corrected TY2007 Form 4852.

 

Kind regards,

 

Forest L. Anderson

 

Enclosures:

Affidavit of mailing 

Notice: CP2000

Response Form                                  

Legal Notice

Affidavit of Legal Notice                         

The Examination Process (Publication 3498 /page 1)     

2007 Form 4852 (corrected)

My Erroneous 1099-R

 

The "service" spluttered a bit by way of reply:

 

 

..and then threw in the towel:

 

 

Watch out for that robot!  I THINK IT'S GOING TO EXPLODE!!

***

 

Isn't it too bad everyone hasn't done like Forest, and read CtC-- the exclusive source of the complete, accurate and liberating truth about the "income" tax?  You can help change that, and thereby help transform America.  Click here to learn how (while you still can-- see below...).

 

EVERY WHICH WAY BUT LOOSE- X

 

In mid-April of 2008, CtC Warrior Stew Grand submitted an educated return to the federal government concerning 2007, which included rebuttals of "income" allegations made by a couple of different payers by way of a 1099-MISC and a 1099-R, respectively, and the calculation and introduction into the record of his self-assessment of $0.

 

More than a year later, in late April of 2009, some loose-cannon scofflaw at the Chamblee, Georgia IRS office decided to test Stew's commitment to the rule of law.  This law-defier cranked out a "CP2000" disputing Stew's declared amount of "income" received, proposing changes to Stew's "account" to the tune of an $3,341.00 liability for 2007, based on simply disregarding his filing:

 

 

 

Stew wasn't having any...  He promptly fired back with a "No, thanks!":

 

May 06, 2009

 

Internal Revenue Service

4900 Buford Highway

Chamblee, GA 39901-0021

 

 Re: Notice CP2000 for my 2007 return, response form enclosed

 

Enclosed please find copies of my 4852 and 1099-MISC corrected forms which show why the accounting on my 1040 form is correct and I agree to no changes.

 

I am not including any phone numbers as I wish to have all communications in writing.

 

Thank you.

 

Respectfully,

 

Stewart G. Grand

 

That's all it took to set the scofflaw back down in his (or her) place:

 

 

Watch out for that robot!  I THINK IT'S GOING TO EXPLODE!!

***

 

Isn't it too bad everyone hasn't done like Stew, and read CtC-- the exclusive source of the complete, accurate and liberating truth about the "income" tax?  You can help change that, and thereby help transform America.  Click here to learn how (while you still can-- see below...).

 

EVERY WHICH WAY BUT LOOSE- IX

 

Mabel C. had a little kerfluffle with the California Franchise Tax Board to deal with recently.  It seems the board wanted to evade the educated return Mabel and her husband Dave had filed for 2007, in which Mabel and Dave were reclaiming everything that had been withheld from her earnings and given over to the state in connection with the "income" tax.

 

The board went through the usual motions familiar to regular EWWBL readers-- declaring Mabel and Dave's filing to be "frivolous", "assessing" various penalties and interest, and so forth.  All told, the state tax agency intended to not only keep the $4300.00+ that Mabel and Dave had claimed for refund, but to take more than an additional $14K from them:

 

 

CtC Warrior Mabel isn't having any of that...

 

Protest Section

Franchise Tax Board

PO Box 942867

Rancho Cordova, CA 94267-5540

 

Reference: Notice of proposed assessment dated 05/13/09

 

Mabel C.

P. O. Box

, CA 95

SSN:

Tax Year: 2007

Proposed assessment amount: 14,331.66 

 

Statements of fact:

 

a.) On February 20, 2008 my husband, David , and I mailed our 2007 joint 540 return.  It was determined that our federal 1040 return was also needed to complete our return.  We delivered this ahead of the deadline(6/19/2008) given in the letter dated May 12, 2008.

 

b.) As stated in the California Revenue and Taxation Code, gross income, adjusted gross income, and taxable income are as defined by IRC sections 61, 62, and 63.

 

             California Revenue and Taxation Code 17071, 17072, 17073:

 

             17071.  Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code, relating to gross

             income defined, shall apply, except as otherwise provided.

 

             17072.  (a) Section 62 of the Internal Revenue Code, relating to

             adjusted gross income defined, shall apply, except as otherwise

             provided. …

 

             17073.  (a) Section 63 of the Internal Revenue Code, relating to

             taxable income defined, shall apply, except as otherwise provided.  …

 

c.) The amount identified as “CA Taxable Income” reported by County of Santa Clara is incorrect.

 

d.) Federal Adjusted Gross Income(AGI) of $5,392 for 2007 is reflected on line 13 of our California form 540 return.  This amount is taken from our federal form 1040, line 37.  It is impossible to use a different AGI amount on the 540 than the one calculated and used on a 1040 for the same tax year.

 

e.) “State Wages” is given on form 540, line 12, but is not used in subsequent calculations in determining the final tax due or tax overpayment. Relevant calculations use Line 13, federal AGI.

 

f.) The IRS honored our 1040 return for 2007, and on March 21, 2008 issued the refund due.

 

g.) I have one dependent child, Robert, SSN.

 

h.) I have deductible items such as Mortgage interest in the amount of $45,672, and Property taxes in the amount of $8,891 paid in 2007.

 

i.) The assertion that I filed a frivolous return, for which the subject notice was issued, remains an unproven allegation.  To this date, the Franchise Tax Board has failed to meet its burden of proof obligation under Revenue and Taxation Code section 19180:

 

             19180.  (a) In any proceeding involving the issue of whether or not

             any person is liable for a penalty under Section 19177, 19178, or

             19179, the burden of proof with respect to that issue shall be on the

             Franchise Tax Board.

 

I protest these details of proposed assessment for the stated reasons:

 

Regarding “CA Taxable Income”:

 

“Income”, whether it is “gross”, “adjusted gross”, or “taxable” is defined in the Internal Revenue Code as stated in fact “b.”   This holds true for any activity which might be subject to the income tax.   Fact “c.” applies. At no time during 2007 did I receive “wages” as an “employee” in a “trade or business” or any other federally connected activity.  I am submitting California Form 3525 to correct the record with respect to these facts.

 

Regarding “standard deduction”:

 

If I had engaged in taxable activities during 2007 and were subject to the tax I would itemize deductions as stated in fact “h.”.

 

Regarding “Exemptions”:

 

Please add my dependent child listed in fact “g.”.

 

Regarding “Delinquent Return” penalty:

 

Fact “a.” demonstrates that I did file a return by the due date.  This penalty has no foundation.

 

Regarding the reasons for the issuance of the notice:

 

1.) Having filed a frivolous return:

I maintain that the return we filed is, to the best of our knowledge and belief, true, correct, and complete, or we would not have signed it under penalties of perjury.  Facts “b.”, “c.”, “d.”, “e.”, and “f.” support our position.   Also of particular value is fact “i”.  In a variety of calls, letters and faxes we stated our position, asked for clarification, and expressed our concern that the Franchise Tax Board has not met its burden of proof, or even offered details for us to act upon, if we were actually somehow in error.

 

2.) Having failed to respond correctly to the correspondence of 6/20/08:

The Frivolous Return Notice dated June 20, 2008 demanded that we file a “valid” return within 30 days.  Since we believe our original return to be correct, we were not inclined to create a return we would consider to be false.  It is impossible for us to comply with the demand no matter what the deadline.   Given these facts, the related penalty and this Proposed Assessment are without foundation.

 

Finally, regarding the Frivolous Return Notice, it is addressed to my husband, David. The Proposed Assessment Notice is addressed to me.  I would appreciate an explanation of this inconsistency.   

 

 

Along with the hearing available to me under the Revenue and Taxation Code section 19044(a) and indicated in the FTB 7275 information,  I request and demand any and all due process to which I am entitled or which is in any way appropriate and/or available to me under any provision or practice of common, statutory, and/or administrative law or protocol.

 

I choose to have my husband, David, act as my authorized representative in these matters.

 

Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined the facts stated in this letter, including any accompanying documents, and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true, correct, and complete.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Mabel C.

 

Daytime phone

 

 

David

 

P. O. Box

, CA 95

Daytime phone:

 

Attachments:

Copy of the Notice of Proposed Assessment

Completed Power of Attorney Declaration.

Form 3525 Substitute for Form W-2

 

This three page letter and three attachments were sent on July 8, 2009 via U.S. Postal Service  Certified mail, tracking number  7008 3230 0002 1951

 

 

...and the FTB has stopped dishing it out:

 

 

Of course, this isn't done, yet.  These folks still owe Mabel and Dave a lot of money...

 

Watch out for that robot!  I THINK IT'S GOING TO EXPLODE!!

***

 

Isn't it too bad everyone hasn't done like Mabel, and read CtC-- the exclusive source of the complete, accurate and liberating truth about the "income" tax?  You can help change that, and thereby help transform America.  Click here to learn how (while you still can-- see below...).

 

EVERY WHICH WAY BUT LOOSE- VIII

 

CtC Warrior Debra Gonzales was subjected to the theft of her pay by way of an IRS "notice of levy"  beginning in July, 2009, theoretically based on an existing, valid assessment concerning 2003:

 

 

Debra didn't see it that way...  After some vain efforts to get better behavior from the company which was diverting her property based on nothing more than a piece of paper, she sent the following demand to

 

Area 8, Area Director, Nashville

801 Broadway, MDP1

Nashville, TN 37203

 

and

 

Technical Services Advisory Group

401 W. Peachtree St., NW, Stop 333-D

Atlanta, GA 30308

 

                  Release of Levy/Request for Refund/Attempt to Exhaust Administrative Remedies

Debra E. Gonzales

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Augusta, Georgia 30909

Account #:

September   8,  2009

RE:  Demand for Release of Levy/Request for Refund/Attempt to Exhaust Administrative Remedies

Attn. Compliance Technical Support Manager or other Secretary of the Treasury delegate/

Chief, Special Procedures Function

Dear Sir:

            I, Debra E. Gonzales, hereinafter Declarant, state that the facts contained herein are true and correct and to the best of Declarant’s firsthand knowledge and belief under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the United States of America.

This is Declarant's attempt exhaust administrative remedies and to comply with 26 USC § 7433(d)(1) and 26 C.F.R. § 301.7433-1, 26 C.F.R. § 301.6343-1(a) & (b)(2).

The grounds upon which Declarant demands that you issue a certificate of release with respect to the attached Notice of Levy (which states on Part 1, "The Internal Revenue Code provides that there is a lien for the amount that is owed" (emphasis added)), springs from 26 U.S.C. § 6325(a)(1) & 26 CFR 301.6325-1(a)(1); in particular, “the entire liability for the tax…[is] unenforceable as a matter of law”. This is Declarant's sincere effort to obtain waiver of sovereign immunity and give herself standing to sue under 26 U.S.C. § 7433(a),

In general,

If, in connection with any collection of Federal tax with respect to a taxpayer, any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service recklessly or intentionally, or by reason of negligence, disregards any provision of this title, or any regulation promulgated under this title, such taxpayer may bring a civil action for damages against the United States in a district court of the United States."

            The property that you are wrongfully levying is Declarant's earnings from XXXXX of Dalton,Georgia to for services rendered by her to XXXXX of Dalton, Georgia.  This levy originated from Kansas City, Missouri.  The date on the notice of levy is July 16, 2009, and it was received by XXXXX of Dalton, Georgia on July 29, 2009, who then sent a copy to Declarant which was received on July 30, 2009.  A copy of the Notice of Levy, which was obtained from XXXXX of Dalton, Georgia, is attached as EXIBIT A.

             You have ignored  26 USC § 6335 requiring that you give Declarant post seizure notice by leaving it at Declarant's "usual place of abode."  You have never done this.  An alternative is given within that statute of mailing Declarant something at her "last known address."  You have never done that either.

             Declarant has suffered the following damages as a result of your actions:  Emotional distress; economic hardship; physical distress; embarrassment. Declarant's status with XXXXX of Dalton, Georgia is in jeopardy because of this making it look to Declarant's superiors as if Declarant doesn’t pay her taxes. So far you have taken $2,000.00+ by way of the levy you have imposed. Declarant estimates the lost interest, late fees and emotional distress and embarrassment damages to be roughly $3,000.00. Declarant has also delayed a medically necessary surgery, and will possibly have to cancel it, if she can not obtain the money to pay her part of the costs that insurance will not pay, which Declarant has been told will be $3,000.00.Declarant has sent a copy of the letter from her doctor to Ms. Ivory at the Taxpayer Advocate Office in Atlanta, Georgia.

            Further, Declarant contends that the economic hardship you have caused her by taking the lions share of her workplace earnings is sufficient grounds under 26 USC § 6343(a)(1)(D) to release the levy at XXXXX of Dalton, Georgia.

What follows is the basis for the demand that a certificate of release respecting the attached levy issue due to  “the entire liability for the tax…[being] unenforceable as a matter of law”.

Declarant sent a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request requesting that the Disclosure Specialist send her, “…a copy of the signed assessment as promised to me by 26 USC 6203 and 26 CFR § 301.6203-1.” Section 6203 states that, when requested by a taxpayer, “the Secretary shall furnish the taxpayer a copy of the record of assessment.” Treasury Regulation § 301.6203-1 specifies that an assessment is made “by an assessment officer signing the summary record of assessment.” A copy of that FOIA request is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as EXHIBIT B.

In United States v. Merriam, 263 U.S. 179, 188 the Supreme Court said, “It is elementary that tax laws are to be interpreted liberally in favor of taxpayers and that words defining things to be taxed may not be extended beyond their clear import. Doubts must be resolved against the Government and in favor of taxpayers.” Also see Bowers v. N. Y. & Albany Co., 273 U.S. 346, 350 and Miller v. Standard Nut, 1932.SCT.40102 <http://www.versuslaw.com>  ¶ 35;  284 U.S. 498 (1932). "The legislature must be presumed to use words in their known and ordinary signification." Levy's Lessee v. McCartee, 6 Pet. 102, 110. "The popular or received import of words furnishes the general rule for the interpretation of public laws." Maillard v. Lawrence, 16 How. 251, 261. And see United States v. Buffalo Gas Co., 172 U.S. 339, 341; United States v. First Nat. Bank, 234 U.S. 245, 258; Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 485.

The word “copy” is defined at dictionary.com as, “An imitation or reproduction of an original; a duplicate.”

It is not within the province of a court to modify the law by construction. Crooks v. Harrelson, 1930.SCT.40822 <http://www.versuslaw.com> ¶ 21; 282 U.S. 55 (1930). It follows then that it is not within the province of administrative agencies, as the IRS presents itself to be, to “modify the law by construction.” When it comes to taxing acts adherence to the letter applies with peculiar strictness. Crooks v. Harrelson, 1930.SCT.40822 <http://www.versuslaw.com> ¶ 21; 282 U.S. 55 (1930). The pole star of interpretation of statutes must be the intention of Congress, when that can be clearly ascertained and is reasonably borne out by the language used. United States v. Stone & Downer Co., 1927.SCT.40496 <http://www.versuslaw.com> ¶ 93;  274 U.S. 225 (1927). Nearly one hundred eighty years ago Mr. Justice Story announced the fundamental doctrine which no court, or supposed administrative agency should forget. "Arguments drawn from impolicy or inconvenience ought here to be of no weight. The only sound principle is to declare, ita lex scripta est, to follow, and to obey. Nor, if a principle so just and conclusive could be overlooked, could there well be found a more unsafe guide in practice than mere policy and convenience." United States v. Stone & Downer Co., supra @ ¶ 98.

 It follows then that when Congress says via 26 U.S.C. § 6203 that, “the Secretary shall furnish the taxpayer a copy of the record of assessment” that what they meant Declarant had a right to was, “An imitation or reproduction of an original; a duplicate.” It also follows then, that what the Disclosure Specialist sent Declarant, in response to her FOIA request, which is also attached as EXHIBIT C (boldly titled “Account Transcript”), constitutes a copy that according to him/her, “… meets all statutory requirements of Internal Revenue Code Section 6203 and applicable regulations.”   

 Treasury Regulation § 301.6203-1 states that an assessment is made, “…by an assessment officer signing the summary record of assessment.”  26 U.S.C. § 6322 states, “…the lien imposed by section 6321 shall arise at the time the assessment is made…” The procedures set forth in the Internal Revenue Code were prescribed for the protection of both Government and taxpayer. Brafman v. United States, 1967.C05.40183 <http://www.versuslaw.com> ¶ 32; 384 F.2d 863 (5th Cir. 1967). Neglect to comply with those procedures may entail consequences which the neglecting party must be prepared to face, whether such party be the taxpayer or the Government. Id. In a technical legal sense a tax does not accrue until it has been assessed and becomes due. United States v. Anderson, 1926.SCT.40020 <http://www.versuslaw.com> ¶ 56; 269 U.S. 422 (1926).

 Declarant has examined IRM Part 25 dealing with “assessments” here: http://www.irs.gov/irm/part25/ch06s05.html#d0e16308 and the only place Declarant can find any reference to a “signed assessment is “25.6.5.10.2  After Hours & Imminent Assessments” where it says in (2)(E), “Route the signed assessment document with the case file, via " Hand carry Mail" , to RACS Accounting function.” Declarant has also spent quite a bit of time reviewing the IRM and has not found a requirement there for an assessment officer to sign assessments. In Brafman v. United States, supra @ ¶ 33 the court points out that, “…courts have not hesitated to enforce strictly the Code requirement that a taxpayer's returns must be signed to be effective. Thus, unsigned returns, even with remittances, have been viewed as nullities from the standpoint of imposition of penalties and of commencement of the running of the statute of limitations. It has availed the taxpayer little that his failure to sign was inadvertent.”

 In Declarant's FOIA request she asked for, “a copy of the signed assessment” (emphasis added) and the Disclosure Specialist responded with “...an account transcript for tax year 2003 consisting of 2 pages. The account transcript meets all statutory requirements of Internal Revenue Code Section 6203 and applicable regulations.” It is apparent that these copies do not contain a signature of an assessment officer meaning that these so called assessments are nullities and a tax has not been assessed. If there is no valid, signed assessment, then, there is no lien arising in the favor of the United States pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6321 and Declarant is justified on the above basis in demanding that you issue a certificate of release of Notice of Levy (which states on Part 1, "The Internal Revenue Code provides that there is a lien for the amount that is owed" (emphasis added)), pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6325(a)(1) & 26 CFR 301.6325-1(a)(1) respecting the attached so called levy. (Note: Declarant has never seen, or been given, any notice or evidence of the lien mentioned in the Notice of Levy.)

 Declarant therefore demands that a certificate of release respecting the attached Notice of Levy (which states on Part 1 "The Internal Revenue Code provides that there is a lien for the amount that is owed" (emphasis added)), issue due to the “the entire liability for the tax…[being] unenforceable as a matter of law”.

 Further, Declarant has received a copy of documents with “Notice of Levy on Wages, Salary, and Other Income” on it sent to XXXXX of Dalton, Georgia pertaining to a “TAX LEVY” in the amount of $27,367.24. These documents appears to be sent by the Department of  Treasury, Internal Revenue Service alleging a tax liability for the year 2003 in an attempt to levy Declarant's workplace earnings. The EXIBIT A TAX  LEVY instructs XXXXX of Dalton, Georgia  to convert Declarant’s payments for services to the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service. The purpose of Declarant’s letter is to inform you that it appears that the Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service has not completed the prerequisite administrative procedures, therefore, due process of law is lacking, and this TAX LEVY is not in full compliance with Federal law; further, that you, and your apparently de facto delegate Debra K. Hurst, Operations Manager, Collections, Kansas City, MO and/or the “Automated collection system support” have knowingly ignored Federal  Regulations and Federal Statutes leaving the United States open to a suit under 26 U.S.C. § 7433 by way of 28 USC § 1346(a) (1) & (e), 28 USC § 1402(c).  Declarant contends that you have done this in violation of Public Policy and have done so in order to punish her for what you may possibly perceive to be a lack of compliance. Declarant contends that this punishment is in violation of the United States Supreme Court decision Bell v. Wollfish, 441 US 520 (1979), in which the Court held that there could be no punishment prior to conviction.

  26 USC § 7433. Civil damages for certain unauthorized collection actions:

(a)  In general If, in connection with any collection of Federal tax with respect to a taxpayer, any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service recklessly or intentionally, or by reason of negligence, disregards any provision of this title, or any regulation promulgated under this title, such taxpayer may bring a civil action for damages against the United States in a district court of the United States.

             The form used for TAX LEVY sent to  XXXXX of Dalton, Georgia by the department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service entitled Notice of Levy on Wages, Salaries, and Other Income is insufficient on its face as it merely conveys information, and therefore has no force or effect of Law. Until all required procedures have been completed according to their corresponding regulations as prescribed by the Secretary, no lawful levy process may begin. There must be a Judicial Court Order authorizing the levy when issued against Declarant’s workplace earnings.  

            For the purpose of determining the exact point in time when the law would consider the levy effective Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 6502 (b), evidences to wit:

(b) Date when a levy is considered made. The date on which a levy on property or right to property is made shall be the date on which the Notice of seizure provided in section 6335(a) is given.

27CFR Part 70.11

Definitions  

Seizure: The act of taking possession of property to satisfy a tax

liability or by virtue of an execution.

“Seizure”, as defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged 6th Edition, evidences to wit:

The act of taking possession of property, e.g., for the violation of law or by virtue of an execution of a judgment. Term implies a taking or removal of something from the possession, actual or  constructive, of another person or persons.

Declarant has not seen any documentation that her workplace earnings are in the possession of the Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service. If you have any documentation that this is the case, please send Declarant the evidence of such documentation immediately.

Declarant did not receive the notice  of seizure required by law, in violation of 6335(a).  

            As evidenced above, seizure must have already taken place.  A levy cannot occur without a seizure.  An attempt is being made to reverse this procedure by using a notice of levy to accomplish a seizure.  This action violates federal tax laws of USC Title 26.

26 IRC 6335(A), evidences to wit:

Sale of seized property.

Notice of seizure.

As soon as practicable after seizure of property, notice in writing shall be given by the Secretary to the owner of the property...

            Property must first be brought into the legal custody of the United States government before it can be levied upon, as there must be actual or constructive physical appropriation of the property.  This is seizure.  Mere intent to reduce to possession and control through notice is insufficient.

            A levy cannot occur until the date on which a legal, lawful notice of seizure is provided.  If there has been no seizure, there can be no legal, lawful notice of seizure; therefore, there can be no levy. The Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service has no authority to levy upon any property that is not already in the Possession of the United States government. 

26 IRC 6331.

 

Levy and distraint.

 

(a) Authority of Secretary. (Section (a) has been eliminated from the notice of levy sent from you). (Here in part) …Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or Elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d) of such officer, employee, or elected official.

The IRS may levy the wages of officers, employees or government officials because their wages are already in the possession of the government, therefore, seizure is perfected.  The Notice of Seizure is therefore provided on the wages, which are already in possession, and the levy is perfected.  This section (a) has been omitted from the backside of your copy of the Notice of Levy.  This can be very misleading as addressed in two separate letters from two different United States Congressmen Dennis M. Hertel and E. Clay Shaw, Jr.; a copy of both letters are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as EXHIBIT D, which state to wit:

 “…Notice of Levy on Wages…Section 6331 IRC entitled “Levy and Distraint” And Section 6331(a) IRC entitled ‘Authority of Secretary’…does not provide Authority to levy wages of private citizens in the private sector.  The Omission of this section from IRS form 668-W may be misleading to some employers…”

 

“This particular provision does not appear to extend to private sector employees. If a form was given to an employer that omitted section (a), this form could be considered misleading.”

            The limitations of the IRS to levy are pointed out in their code in sections 7401:

§ 7401. Authorization

No civil action for the collection or recovery of taxes, or of any fine, penalty, or forfeiture, shall be commenced unless the Secretary authorizes or sanctions the proceedings and the Attorney General or his delegate directs that the action be commenced.

 The parallel authorities is in 27 CFR part 70. 27 CFR part 70 has authority under BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO and FIREARMS.

 Declarant is not subject to the authority of BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS, which  is being used against her. Title 26 USC  § 7403. Action to enforce lien or to subject property to payment of tax has the exact same authority as 7401--- 27 CFR part 70.

             Authorization for the collection or recovery of taxes, etc., is directed through court action for those who are not under government control through employment.  The result could be the finding of a person to be a judgment debtor, resulting in a court order being issued in favor of the United States.  Until a court order is attained, the Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service has no authority to impose a levy on anyone who is not a government official as above. The only persons who can be levied upon by a TAX LEVY are certain government officials or others whom the courts have declared to be judgement debtors by an order of the court, i.e., by court order.  A court order is necessary for the levy of Declarant’s workplace earnings.

The Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service appears to be unlawfully pointing out the code, omitting certain sections to unaware employers and other fiduciaries, which seem to indicate, if they do not comply and levy the wages of a non-federal employee or non-court ordered person, they can be sanctioned.  Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service uses Internal Revenue Code Section 6332(b)(1),  which evidences in part:

IRC Sec. 6332. Surrender of property subject to levy.

Enforcement of levy.

Extent of personal liability.  Any person who fails or refuses to surrender any property or rights to property, subject to levy, upon demand by the Secretary, shall be liable in his own person and estate to the United States in a sum equal to the value of the property or rights not so surrendered…

            The Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service fails to inform the same unaware employer and other Fiduciaries of the law as it exists in the Code of Federal Regulations 302.6332-1(c)(2), evidencing to wit:

26 CFR 301.6332-1(c)(2)

Any person who mistakenly surrenders to the United States property or rights to Property not properly subject to levy is not relieved from liability to a third Party who owns the property.

Declarant notes that 26 USC § 6343 provides YOU with authority to release a levy, and 26 USC § 6343(b)(1)(2) allows for the return of property wrongfully levied upon.  Based upon the foregoing, Declarant contends that you have sufficient grounds to do both.

This is Declarant's attempt to exhaust administrative remedies and to comply with 26 USC § 7433(d)(1) and 26 C.F.R. § 301.7433-1, 26 C.F.R. § 301.6343-1(a) & (b)(2).

 Declarant demands that you issue a certificate of release with respect to the attached Notice of Levy (which states on Part 1, "The Internal Revenue Code provides that there is a lien for the amount that is owed" (emphasis added)), springs from 26 U.S.C. § 6325(a)(1) & 26 CFR 301.6325-1(a)(1); in particular, “the entire liability for the tax…[is] unenforceable as a matter of law.”

Declarant therefore demands that you release the levy at XXXXX of Dalton, Georgia and return the funds that you have seized to date.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Debra E. Gonzales

 

The result?

 

 

 

 

Way to stand your ground, Debra!

 

Watch out for that robot!  I THINK IT'S GOING TO EXPLODE!!

***

 

Isn't it too bad everyone hasn't done like Debra, and read CtC-- the exclusive source of the complete, accurate and liberating truth about the "income" tax?  You can help change that, and thereby help transform America.  Click here to learn how (while you still can-- see below...).

 

EVERY WHICH WAY BUT LOOSE- VII

 

In early 2007, CtC Warrior G. K. filed an educated federal return/claim for refund for 2006 and received all of his withheld property back promptly and without incident, as expected:

 

 

 

 

Normally, that would be that, but annoyingly, nearly a year later some IRS thug decided to take a shot at scaring G. into repudiating his testimony, abandoning his self-respect and embracing a lie:

 

 

 

Guess what?  G. is a real American-- something this IRS goon apparently wasn't familiar with...

 

 

 

This set G.'s bureaucratic correspondent back on his heels a bit; the response was a, "Gee, maybe we'll take another look at this...":

 

(I get the image of Jake Blues, after having it pointed out how much trouble he would have eating corn-on-the-cob without any teeth, weakly assuring the band leader he's just tried to shake down that he'd "put his group on waivers" and straighten things out with Bob of 'Bob's Country Bunker'...)

 

Well, the agency DID take another look, and it did straighten itself out:

 

 

Watch out for that robot!  I THINK IT'S GOING TO EXPLODE!!

***

 

Isn't it too bad everyone hasn't done like G., and read CtC-- the exclusive source of the complete, accurate and liberating truth about the "income" tax?  You can help change that, and thereby help transform America.  Click here to learn how (while you still can-- see below...).

 

EVERY WHICH WAY BUT LOOSE- VI

 

In March of 2009, CtC Warrior Susan Blanchard was on the receiving end of one of those can-we-invite-you-back-into-the-barn "Proposed Tax Increase" efforts with which regular readers of this series are all-too familiar.  This one asked Susan to decide that she really owed Uncle Sammy north of $24K, rather than "nada", which is what she had already calculated:

 

 

 

Susan declined...

 

March 4 2009

 

Internal Revenue Service

Fresno IRS Center

5045 East Butler Avenue

Fresno, CA 92888-0021

 

 

RE:     Response to Notice CP2000 – Proposed IRS Changes to 2007 Form 1040

          Social Security Number 531-60-9257

AUR Control Number 50019-3735

 

 

To Whom It May Concern:

 

I received an unsigned Notice CP2000 (hereinafter referred to as “Notice”) dated March 2, 2009, a copy of which is enclosed, that stated in Paragraph 1., Why are you getting this notice?. “The Income and payment information (e.g., wages, miscellaneous income, interest, income tax withheld, earned income credit, etc.) that we have on file does not match entries on your (my) 2007 Form 1040.”

 

In accordance with the Noticed, as stated on Page 3, I have completed Step A, and checked the box marked “OPTION 3”, I DO NOT AGREE with any of the changes the Internal Revenue Service is proposing. The CP2000 proposal to change the sworn testimony of my valid 2007 Form 1040 tax return. In addition, the IRS has no lawful authority to change my return.

 

The information reported to you about me from , that you reference on Page 6 in your Notice under the section ‘NONEMPLOYEE COMPENSTATION”, and using it as your basis to propose changes, is Bad Payer Data as described in the Internal Revenue Manual, Part 4.2.2.4.4.(e)

 

Axxxxx Inc; and Sxxxxx Inc; are non-governmental, for-profit, private-sector corporations and/or business people and have not paid to me any Federally-connected money for any Federally-connected service as performed by me as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(26).  These corporations and individuals(s) have nothing to do with the performance of the functions of a public office. There were not required to report my private-sector payment on Form 1099-MISC, but did anyway. Of course, their erroneous information on Form 1099-MISC does not match my correction of each.

 

The valid return I filed for 2007 had documents (signed by me under penalty of perjury) submitted with it that corrected the incorrect information that was reported, and the IRS has processed them in relation to my return to my satisfaction in that the “Amount Included on Your Return” was correctly recorded as $0 (zero dollars).  I have enclosed copies of those documents for your reference and to support my statement and I will use them in any court proceeding if needed.  I expect the IRS to correct its records as to what was reported to them based on these documents submitted by me.

 

If the IRS has firsthand knowledge of any amounts reported other that what I have claimed and sworn to under penalty of perjury. I will require Section 6201(d) verification to support your position.

No further actions is required by the IRS or other than to correct its information (as I have reported the IRS under penalty of perjury) and respond to me that this matter is now closed.

 

I request and demand any and all due process to which I am entitled or which is in any way appropriate and/or available to me under any provision or practice of common, statutory and/or administrative law or protocol including, but not limited to, that to which your Notice refers; and incorporate by reference into this request and demand all relevant information included on or in that Notice or by requesting and demanding the due process referenced above.

 

Be advised that it is my intention to audio-record any and all proceedings for which such an options is lawfully available to me. I declare that I make no admission as to my status, the legitimacy of your implicit or explicit assertions, or the fitness of any particular legal or administrative protocol by responding to your Notice or by requesting and demanding the due process referenced above.

 

Prior to any formal or informal due process hearing, I expect and require meaningful clarification as to the nature of and reason for, any alleged assessment, the process by which any and all relevant determinations reflected in an by your office were arrived at, and  anything else pertinent to the matter.

 

If the IRS or its officers/agents fail to rebut in writing within 30 days of receipt of the Response that with which they disagree, then they admit to all the above statements as truth and as fully binding upon them in any court of the Unites States of America without protest, objection, or that of those who represent you.

 

Under the penalties of perjury, I declare that I examined the facts stated in this letter, including any accompanying documents, ad to the best of my knowledge and belief; they are true, correct, and complete.

 

Thank you,

 

Susan Blanchard

 

Encl:

Copy of Notice: CP2000 from IRS, Notice dated March 02, 2009

2 Corrected Form 1099-MISC with written statements by me disputing an correcting incorrect information reported to the IRS by “PAYEES” referred to above

 

It only took a month and a few days for satisfaction:

 

 

Pretty quick resolution of this abusive little effort, yes?

 

Well, actually, it appears that someone over-wound the Robot on this one, 'cause the very same day that this closing notice issued, another assault on Susan's patience began, as evidenced by this:

 

 

Pretty cryptic, huh?  Well, the game being played here will become clear in a moment, but as we proceed, I want everyone to remember that the previous agency docs acknowledge Susan's return-- they refer to it specifically and repeatedly; also, the IRS had proposed that Susan actually owed $19,477.00 plus penalties and interest for a total of $24, 634.00 for 2007.

 

Now, with both of those things firmly in mind, let's look at what Susan got next from the IRS concerning 2007:

 

and

 

(Note that we've changed IRS offices, here-- the previous stuff was all from Fresno, California, whereas the new scary-papers are from Ogden, Utah...)

 

Susan quite reasonably shot off a response to these notices to the same Fresno office with which she had been dealing in the first place, imagining that it had lost track of her case.  Here is what she got in reply:

 

 

"No mistake", Susan is told-- "we know your case is closed.  This is a different issue..."  Nine days later Susan gets the next level scary-paper following up on the others-- this time from... wait for it... the Fresno office!  Here it is:

 

 

The Robot is really bouncing and banging, now, but notice this interesting thing through the smoke and spraying grease: in addition to the usual weaseling "assertion" language, and the deliberately indeterminate "explanation" for the "assertion", this notice acknowledges that Susan's existing balance for 2007 is $0.00...

 

Susan had something to say about this "notice", too:

 

October 14, 2009

 

Internal Revenue Service
Fresno, CA 93888-001

RE:  Notice SP15 dated 09/28/09, Tax Year 2007

 

Dear Unnamed IRS Employee:

 

I disagree with the IRS’ inferred interpretation of IRC 6702 as pointed out in your notice.

My 2007 Tax Year was closed on 04\13\2009 as per IRS Notice CP-2005 – how can you claim a penalty when I own nothing, and the matter settled?

 

At any rate, assessment has nothing to do with the IRS determining the amount of “income” on a return as seems to be inferred in your quoting of 6702(a) A.1 & 2! It is very clearly shown via 26 USC 6203 Method of Assessment:

 

“The assessment shall be made by recording the liability of the taxpayer in the office of the Secretary in accordance with rules or regulations prescribed by the Secretary.  Upon request of the taxpayer, the Secretary shall furnish the taxpayer a copy of the record of the assessment” (Boldface added)

 

And 26 CFR 301.6203-1 that:

 

“The amount of the assessment shall, in the case of tax shown on a return by the taxpayer, be the amount so shown. . .” (Boldface, underlining and italics added)

 

It doesn’t say, “The amount of the assessment shall, in the case of tax greater than zero shown on a return…” does it? No! If “taxable income” is “zero”, then the self-assessed tax amount will naturally be “zero”. It is inescapable!

 

You are also inferring that B.1 or 2. Applies to my return, but you are leaving it up to me to imagine which one must be applicable. You are the party making the accusation, so surely, you must know which one it is! However, there is no disclosure in your notice! I am astounded that you would think that I would fall for this!

 

You state toward the end of the first page that “If you wish to contest the assertion of the penalty...”  That is an interesting word to use here: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines “assertion” as:  “A positive statement without support of proof.” So, what are you doing is making a statement that I have been charged a penalty described in a certain section of law, which is quoted, that you state I have violated without providing conclusive proof of same.

 

Since you are the ones making the assertion that a “Penalty Assessment” in the amount of $5,000.00 has been assessed, let’s see it.

 

Please provide me a copy of the record of assessment for 2007 as is allowed by the provisions of 26 USC 6203:

 

“…Upon request of the taxpayer, the Secretary shall furnish the taxpayer a copy of the record of the assessment…”   (Boldface, underlining added)

 

within 30 days from the date of your receipt of this letter as confirmed by postal return receipt through the United States Postal Service.

 

An aggregate record will not satisfy this request. Adequate compliance with this request requires documentation sufficient to clearly establish my personal liability. I demand an actual photocopy, with the signature of the assessment officer included. The reason for this request is both to establish the existence of the assessment, and of determine for myself the assessment’s compliance with all related provisions of the law.

 

The making of the request is not to be considered or construed as an admission of “taxpayer” status or of liability for any tax penalty. Refusal to cooperate with this request will be recognized as an acknowledgement that I am NOT, in fact liable for the penalty alleged to be due and owing or otherwise collectible in any manner as inferred by your notice!

 

Emphatically,

 

Susan Blanchard

CP-2005 Closing Notice for 2007 Tax Year dated 4\13\09

 

Unfortunately, the Robot wasn't done unwinding.  The next thing Susan received was this (from Fresno):

 

 

and then immediately afterward, this (from Ogden):

 

 

Now you see why I drew your attention to the fact that Susan's 2007 return was long-since acknowledged-- by Fresno.  Maybe it's just not good enough to send a return to only one IRS office anymore?  Perhaps we all need to pre-emptively send a copy to every IRS "campus", just to keep these folks from making silly mistakes (or playing silly games...)?

 

Anyway, Susan shot off her replies:

 

               November 28, 2009


Department of the Treasury Certified Mail #: 70051160000 97083543  
Internal Revenue Service Return Receipt Requested
Fresno, CA 93888-0025

Re: CP-504 Notice
Date of notice: 11-27-2009

Dear Internal Revenue Service:

THIS LETTER CONSTITUTES CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF FACTS TO THE IRS.

 

I received a ‘CP504’ on 11-02-2009. The letter contains no authorized name or signature. The ‘current balance’ and ‘interest’ amounts are erroneous and invalid. I do not owe any ‘balance due’ nor any tax or penalty liability whatsoever.

 

Attached is my IRSs CP-2005 closing Notice dated: 04\13\09 tax for 2007

 

Please update your 2007 records, thank you for your prompt action.

 

Sincerely,

 

Susan Blanchard

Enc: CP-2005 for TX YR 2007

 

               November 28, 2009

 

Department of the Treasury Certified Mail #: 7005 1160 0001 9708 3642  
Internal Revenue Service Return Receipt Requested
1973 North Rulon White Blvd.

Ogden, UT 84404-0040

 

Re: Response to Letter 1862

 

To Ms Love (Employee Identification Number: 0469241048)

 

I received your Letter 1862, and Form 4549 –I have received these in error – I think your dueling computers are up to their tricks, in not knowing what the other computers are doing.

 

Attached is my IRSs CP-2005 closing Notice dated: 04\13\09 tax for 2007

 

Please update your 2007 records, thank you for your prompt action.

 

Sincerely,

 

Susan Blanchard

Enc: CP-2005 for TX YR 2007

 

Now she waits to see what she'll get next concerning 2007 (and from where).  In the meantime,

 

Watch out for that robot!  I THINK IT'S GOING TO EXPLODE!!

***

 

Isn't it too bad everyone hasn't done like Susan, and read CtC-- the exclusive source of the complete, accurate and liberating truth about the "income" tax?  You can help change that, and thereby help transform America.  Click here to learn how (while you still can-- see below...).

 

EVERY WHICH WAY BUT LOOSE- V

 

In March of 2009, CtC Warrior Michael was on the receiving end of one of those can-we-invite-you-back-into-the-barn "Proposed Tax Increase" efforts with which regular readers of this series are all-too familiar.  This one asked Michael to decide that he really owed Uncle Sammy north of $16K in connection with his earnings during 2007, rather than the "zero" he had already calculated:

 

 


 

Michael wasn't having any of it...

 






 

It only took a month and a few days for satisfaction:

 

 

Watch out for that robot!  I THINK IT'S GOING TO EXPLODE!!

***

 

Isn't it too bad everyone hasn't done like Michael, and read CtC-- the exclusive source of the complete, accurate and liberating truth about the "income" tax?  You can help change that, and thereby help transform America.  Click here to learn how (while you still can-- see below...).

 

EVERY WHICH WAY BUT LOOSE- IV

 

In May of 2007, CtC Warriors Joan and Lowell Thompson were faced with a bluster and bs attack by the IRS, which sought to intimidate these good Americans into perjuring themselves and declaring their non-federally-connected receipts to be so connected, and therefore taxable as "income", even after their testimony to the contrary had already been filed:

 

 

 

  Joan and Lowell, firm in their commitment to the rule of law, stood fast:

 


 

Lowell and Joan were treated to another effort a month-and-a-half later (unfortunately not preserved to share here), and again responded with firmness and confidence:

 

 

It took nearly a year, but eventually Joan and Lowell got the "surrender" by the agency to which they were entitled (and in a form we've not seen before):

 

 

It'd be nice if these bureaucrats would just forget about all these shameful ploys as soon as they recognize that they're dealing with CtC-educated Americans, instead of clinging to the hope that maybe they've stumbled upon the odd one or two that might let themselves be intimidated into collapse, wouldn't it?

 

Someday...

 

In the meantime, though,

 

Watch out for that robot!  I THINK IT'S GOING TO EXPLODE!!

By the way, this isn't the only time Lowell and Joan have had to deal with this nonsense.  They had the same ridiculous ploy tried on them the next year as well, this time for 2006.  See how THAT went on page 28 of the ever-growing Victories collection.

 

***

 

Isn't it too bad everyone hasn't done like Joan and Lowell, and read CtC-- the exclusive source of the complete, accurate and liberating truth about the "income" tax?  You can help change that, and thereby help transform America.  Click here to learn how (while you still can-- see below...).

 

EVERY WHICH WAY BUT LOOSE- III

 

This past January, CtC Warrior Vince Smith wasted no time sending in his claim for the return of everything that had been withheld from him and given over to the federal government in connection with the "income" tax during 2009:

 

 

Annoyingly, the IRS wasn't quite as eager to abide by the law...

 

(This image combines both pages of this "LTR 12C" balk-instrument)

 

However, Vince takes the law seriously, and knows that it is HIS responsibility to enforce the law when those in positions of authority and public trust seek to evade it:

 

 

This time the errant agency got the message that it's dealing with a real American, who won't let himself be browbeaten, fooled or frightened into assuming a prone position in the face of government misbehavior:

 

 

It'd be nice if these bureaucrats would just forget about all these shameful ploys as soon as they recognize that they're dealing with CtC-educated Americans, instead of clinging to the hope that maybe they've stumbled upon the odd one or two that might let themselves be intimidated into collapse, wouldn't it?

 

Someday...

 

In the meantime, though,

 

Watch out for that robot!  I THINK IT'S GOING TO EXPLODE!!

Isn't it too bad everyone hasn't done like Vince, and read CtC-- the exclusive source of the complete, accurate and liberating truth about the "income" tax?  You can help change that, and thereby help transform America.  Click here to learn how (while you still can-- see below...).

 

EVERY WHICH WAY BUT LOOSE- II

 

Two years ago, a CtC Warrior and his wife (who want to stay anonymous for the moment) were subjected to a gratuitous California Franchise Tax Board "determination" that their educated filing for 2007 was "frivolous", and "asserting" a related penalty and, eventually, a "proposed assessment" based on the specious fiction that no return had been filed:

 

 

 

Our intrepid warriors, who knew the law, explained it to the FTB clearly.  Indeed, the response made was so well-crafted that I posted it here back in July of 2008.  See it here.

 

California went into a serious stall, pretend-to-misunderstand and huff-and-puff mode, prompting a number of exchanges over the next 18 months, all of pretty much the same character and content, while moving up the bureaucratic chain to the appeals level.

 

Finally, having apparently recognized that the words of the law don't change just because you repeatedly refuse to acknowledge them, and that Americans who are in the right don't stand down no matter how loudly you yell at them, California surrendered:

 

 

WELL DONE, JOHN (AND JANE) Q.!!  Just goes to show what can be accomplished when people with the truth on their side are perseverant.  But...

 

Watch out for that robot!  I THINK IT'S GOING TO EXPLODE!!

Isn't it too bad everyone hasn't done like Mr. and Mrs. Citizen, and read CtC-- the exclusive source of the complete, accurate and liberating truth about the "income" tax?  You can help change that, and thereby help transform America.  Click here to learn how (while you still can-- see below...).

 

EVERY WHICH WAY BUT LOOSE- I

 

CtC Warrior Brady Kane has made quick work of a bogus IRS effort to chivvy him back into the eyes-down, cud-chewing, barn-bound herd.  In April of 2009, Brady sent a clear and simple educated rebuttal of an erroneous "information return" and declaration of "income" received for 2008 to the IRS:

 

 

 

That should have been that, as it usually is, but in Brady's case, some IRS thug (maybe looking to score some brownie points with a corrupt supervisor) decided to take a shot at scaring Brady back into "the submission position".  Thus, last March Brady got this in the mail:

 

 

Needless to say, Warrior Brady, who takes his responsibilities as an American as seriously as our Founders did, wasn't having any of this Kool-Aid:

 

April 1, 2010

 

Brady Kane

 

Internal Revenue Service

Fresno, CA 93888-0021

 

RE: Response to Notice CP2000-Proposed IRS Changes to 2008 Form 1040EZ

 

To whom it may concern:

 

I am in receipt of an unsigned CP2000 notice (hereinafter referred to as “Notice”) dated March 15th 2010 a copy of which is enclosed, that stated in paragraph 1, Why you are getting this notice?” The income and payment information (e.g. wages, miscellaneous income, interest, income tax withheld, earned income credit, etc.) that we have on file does not match entries on your (my) 2008 form 1040.”

 

In accordance with the notice, as stated on page 3, I have completed step A, and checked the box marked “option 3”. I DO NOT AGREE with any proposed changes the IRS is proposing (CP2000 proposal to change my sworn testimony of my valid 2008 Form 1040 tax return). I simply rebutted an erroneous information return filed to you, about me, from XXXX XX XXXXXXXXX Ctr.

 

Furthermore, XXXX XX XXXXXXXXX’s erroneous information return that you reference on pages 5 and 6 in your Notice under the section titled “NONEMPLOYEE COMPENSATION”, and using it as your basis to propose changes, is bad payer data as described in the Internal Revenue Manual, Part 4.2.2.4.4(E)

 

Furthermore, the above said information return is hearsay evidence as it is not signed under penalty of perjury and therefore is excludible under the Hearsay Rule, Federal Rule 802.

 

XXXX XX XXXXXXXXX is a private sector owned and operated company and as such, has never paid to me any FEDERALLY-CONNECTED money for any federally-connected services performed by me as defined in 26 U.S.C.§ 7701(a)(26). My activities at XXXX XX XXXXXXXXX are voluntary in nature and I DID NOT perform the functions of a public office and therefore, was not engaged in a trade or business.

 

XXXX XX XXXXXXXXX is not required to report payments made to me on Form 1099-MISC, but did so anyway. Of course the erroneous information on Form 1099-MISC submitted to the IRS by XXXX XX XXXXXXXXX does not match the FORM 1040 I submitted with my corrected and signed (under penalty of perjury) form 1099-MISC.

 

I expect the IRS to correct its records as to what was reported to them based on these documents submitted by me. 

 

If the IRS has firsthand knowledge of any amounts reported other than what I have claimed and sworn to under penalty of perjury, I will require Section 6201(d) verification to support your position.

 

No further action is required by the IRS other than to correct its information (as I have reported to the IRS under penalty of perjury) and respond to me that this matter is now closed.

 

I request and demand any and all due process to which I am entitled or which is in any way appropriate and/or available to me under any provisions or practice of common, statutory, and/or administrative law or protocol including, but not limited to, that to which your notice refers; and incorporate by requesting and demanding the due process referenced above. Be advised, I intend to audio record any and all meetings or verbal correspondence (phone or in-person).

 

Prior to any formal or informal due process hearing, I expect and require meaningful clarification as to the nature of and reason for any alleged assessment, the process by which any and all relevant determinations reflected in and by your office were arrived at and anything else pertinent to the matter.

 

If the IRS or its officers/agents fail to rebut in writing within 30 days of receipt of this response that with which they disagree, then they admit to all the above statements as true and as fully binding upon them in any court of the United States of America without protest, objection, or that of those who represent you.

 

Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have examined the facts stated in this letter (including the Internal Revenue Code) and accompanying documents and to the best of my knowledge and belief, that they are true, correct and complete.

 

Thank you,

 

 

Brady Kane

 

The IRS, which is now verrrry familiar with this kind of response, and understands that those who send it aren't backing down and aren't going to be fooled again, quickly folded its tent and went to look for a non-CtC-educated person to bother instead:

 

 

One can only hope that those non-CtC-educated folks out there will wake up and start helping good patriots like Brady get the out-of-control, law defying federal government back into harness where it belongs.  If they don't, we're just going to have to watch in sorrow while the harness is tightened on these folks instead, and the whip-cracking begins in earnest...

 

Meanwhile, WAY TO GO, Brady, and,

 

Watch out for that robot!  I THINK IT'S GOING TO EXPLODE!!

Isn't it too bad everyone hasn't done like Brady, and read CtC-- the exclusive source of the complete, accurate and liberating truth about the "income" tax?  You can help change that, and thereby help transform America.  Click here to learn how (while you still can-- see below...).

Every Which Way But Loose I

Every Which Way But Loose II

Also, see the Victories Highlights page for additional specially-notable CtC-educated victories, and, to enjoy hundreds and hundreds of straightforward "just-the-check-and-no-hassles" victories enjoyed by the CtC-educated for years now, click here.

 

Are You Ready For More Power?

 

   

"Peter Hendrickson has done it again!  'Upholding The Law' does for individual liberties what 'Cracking the Code' did for tax law compliance: exposes the reader to the unalienable truth!"

-Jesse Herron, Bill Of Rights Press, Fort Collins, Colorado

 

AND DON'T MISS

NEW

from Pete Hendrickson,

the man who Cracked the Code of the United States "income" tax;

 

became the first American in history to recover EVERYTHING withheld from him, Social Security and Medicare "contributions" included;

 

and has ever since been the target of unrelenting assaults by a government willing to do just about anything to thwart the spread of the truth!!

 

In this new volume, you'll learn about:

 

  • The in-depth, real story behind the Sixteenth Amendment;

  • A simple little model of just how the "income" tax works;

  • Cognitive stumbling blocks exploited by tax agencies against liberation-seeking Americans;

  • The disturbing relationship between the "income" tax and the Federal Reserve;

  • Why tax reform ideas like the "Fair Tax" are not only unnecessary, but completely counter-productive and even dangerous;

  • Why the "income" tax is what it is, and has to be;

  • The truth about common myths and misunderstandings within the "tax honesty" movement;

  • How to think clearly about the tax, the law in general, and the voracious state;

Plus,

  • A sordid little passport application scam revealed;

  • How to know if you're in denial about the current crisis in America;

  • Whether the Constitution is going to save you, or is it the other way around?

  • The truth about paper "money; government schools; the Second Amendment...

...and much, much more!

 

Is this information of any value to you? If so, please consider a donation to help keep it available.

Donations can be sent to:

Peter Hendrickson

232 Oriole St.

Commerce Twp., MI  48382