The Lost Horizons Forum

A meeting place for the CtC-empowered.
It is currently Mon Jun 17, 2019 8:42 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:36 am
Posts: 20
I am. Firstly, I'm appealing a 'deficiency notice' by my State Tax Commission, through our 'Board of Tax Appeals'. I plan to crush 'em with Pete's Core Arguments, arranged for State actions. If successful, I'll gladly share my documentation, as appropriate. If I fail in front of the Board, I can still sue in District Court.

The IRS is loafing, getting me my refunds from past years. I might need to go after them as well. No 'de novo' hearing with them, just straight into District Court, or a 'higher' venue? I haven't looked into the mechanics of suing the IRS, yet.

Anybody else got an upcoming trial, or a victory from a past court battle?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 6:36 pm
Posts: 4
Eric, Haven't been to court against them but have seriously thought about taking the IRS there. Trouble in finding a lawyer willing to undertake the issue. Will be following your posts to see how you are doing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 7:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2016 4:56 pm
Posts: 1
Hello Friends. I mailed my Tax Court Petition (I'd be happy to share) December 26 and just got the green return receipt back today. Its so comforting to hear a story about a judge on our side. I plan on standing on the statutes and the truth about the tax. Maybe they wont even try it!?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 11:59 pm
Posts: 1
Are Tax Court cases public record? Is it possible for Joe Blow to review your victory in court, George Luniv?

My understanding is that any reference to "frivolous" in Tax Court will quickly result in fines and these judges can deny motions without giving a reason. Remember that Tax Court is backwards: burden of proof is on us to prove we DON'T owe (not possible to prove a negative). We can only point to their failure to follow their own agency procedures. Then in Federal District Court we must sue claiming and proving that they owe us which IS possible. Since tax court can be held as a prerequisite (administrative remedy exhaustion) for district court, one must not mention anything related to "frivolous" in tax court. The problem I see is that district court is a whole different ball game and much less forgiving to the pro se party. I would like to see evidence (publicly verifiable record) of tax court victories for a CTC return which the IRS refused to simply proceed and issue refund.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:36 am
Posts: 20
Thanks to all, for the replies and the interest in the topic.

My 'Appeal Board' hearing is Feb. 22nd. I'll have more to say, after that affair is completed.

Never thought reading the latest 'tax court' decisions would be as exciting as picking up the newest issue of my favorite comic!

You all stand firm.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 7:40 am
Posts: 18
First, George is the following awesome story about you?

http://losthorizons.com/A/VAGeorgeFRPStory.pdf

If so, I want to say thank you for being you, and for sharing!

Second, Eric, below is another great U.S. Tax Court case to check out regarding the Form 8278 behind the frivolous penalty hoax.
The form 8278 was declared not valid by the U.S. tax court.

At the bottom of the form 8278, there is the printed name of the "Originator" under "Originator signature", which clearly is not a signature at all. Also there is someone's signature under "Manager signature", but it's not clear who it is. The IRS lawyers are masters at dodging liability, and I think this is just another attempt at that, since it is very unclear which specific agent is actually alleging the penalty. The law (below) is clear that the signature of the "immediate supervisor" is required. Since the form doesn't even have a place for the name or signature of a "supervisor", then it is invalid; thus, it cannot be used in establishing liability for any penalty!

Under the provisions of 26 USC § 6751(b), the assessment of any asserted penalty requires supervisor approval:

(b) Approval of assessment (1) In general No penalty under this title shall be assessed unless the initial determination of such assessment is personally approved (in writing) by the immediate supervisor of the individual making such determination or such higher level official as the Secretary may designate.

Here is the tax court ruling destroying the validity of Form 8278, at least in that case, since the IRS didn't attempt to link up the statutory requirements with the form's information! Notice the tax court judge's use of the term "immediate supervisor". See any order in this entire case by clicking the links in the "Document" column.

The overall case is here:
https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcDockInq/ ... o=14028788

The specific Order destroying the Form 8278 validity is here:
filed on 12/23/2016
https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcDockInq/ ... ID=7012764


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2019 11:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:03 pm
Posts: 14
Fellas,

Great thread you have here, wonderful information and congratulations with your victories George. I too, intend to hit one out of the park in my local federal district court against bad actors in the IRS and their bogus "frivolous" assessments.

Regarding the State of Vermont, I'm presently appealing through the superior court a "Notice of Assessment" the DOT has imposed on me for tax years 2016 and 2017. They returned all my property plus interest for 2016 and 4 months later decided to take a stab at scaring me back into the copper top barn..

Since their original notice of assessment in October 2017, I've run into great difficulties with the state altering my statements of account, having outside collections actions pursued on me and very, very poor communication over the phone all of which I have on video record as well. It was pretty obvious they'd rather I shut up, fall in line, and pay on their demands, OVER MY DEAD BODY. Upon filing my 2017 return they decided to keep the withheld amounts and issue me a 2nd NOA which was invariably followed with the same nonsense aforementioned.

On November 1st 2018, I had an appeals hearing with the state's assistant attorney,the employee who made the adjustments to the return and a state hearing officer. The hearing conducted by the state would either grant of deny my appeal based on an "affirmative defense" made by me. It is my inclination that the whole appeals process is absolutely unilateral. My suspicions were confirmed when fellow warrior Bruce who lives 15 minutes from me whom is also going through the appeals process had his hearing, upon receiving his determination we noticed a striking resemblance between the two. We had ENTIRELY DIFFERENT approaches to the hearing, yet the state's "determination" aside from some identifying peculiarities relative to his specific hearing were almost entirely alike.

We NEVER made and reference to Cracking the Code in our arguments and the state includes in it's determination that "litigants have been put on notice" about these types of arguments and the arguments made in CTC are without merit and courts have concluded them to nonsense etc.. They never ever site any supreme court rulings in their determination as I did in my statements for the record. They always site lower court rulings taken out of context such Lantham V. Sullivan etc. I'd be happy to share that with any of you upon request.

Anyways, I appealed the state's determination to the Superior court and on February 4th experience my first "status conference". The result of which is I have until March 8th to file a memorandum and the state has 3 weeks after that to file a reply, and then I have 10 day's to respond to the states reply. If the matter isn't resolved by then we go to a hearing.

That's where I'm at now, fellas!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2019 7:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 7:40 am
Posts: 18
James,
Glad to have you part of this forum. Thank you for the great summary. Please keep us posted on your restricting the State of Vermont to the bounds of its authority.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:15 pm
Posts: 23
Jeremy Lee wrote:
First, George is the following awesome story about you?

http://losthorizons.com/A/VAGeorgeFRPStory.pdf

If so, I want to say thank you for being you, and for sharing!

Second, Eric, below is another great U.S. Tax Court case to check out regarding the Form 8278 behind the frivolous penalty hoax.
The form 8278 was declared not valid by the U.S. tax court.

At the bottom of the form 8278, there is the printed name of the "Originator" under "Originator signature", which clearly is not a signature at all. Also there is someone's signature under "Manager signature", but it's not clear who it is. The IRS lawyers are masters at dodging liability, and I think this is just another attempt at that, since it is very unclear which specific agent is actually alleging the penalty. The law (below) is clear that the signature of the "immediate supervisor" is required. Since the form doesn't even have a place for the name or signature of a "supervisor", then it is invalid; thus, it cannot be used in establishing liability for any penalty!

Under the provisions of 26 USC § 6751(b), the assessment of any asserted penalty requires supervisor approval:

(b) Approval of assessment (1) In general No penalty under this title shall be assessed unless the initial determination of such assessment is personally approved (in writing) by the immediate supervisor of the individual making such determination or such higher level official as the Secretary may designate.

Here is the tax court ruling destroying the validity of Form 8278, at least in that case, since the IRS didn't attempt to link up the statutory requirements with the form's information! Notice the tax court judge's use of the term "immediate supervisor". See any order in this entire case by clicking the links in the "Document" column.

The overall case is here:
https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcDockInq/ ... o=14028788

The specific Order destroying the Form 8278 validity is here:
filed on 12/23/2016
https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcDockInq/ ... ID=7012764


All of the above is pertinent and good information, my question is... why not just ask for the mandatory 6020(b) Return that is required for a FRP to be legally assessed:

The requirements under 6020(b) are non-discretionary:

If any person fails to make any return required by any internal revenue law or regulation made thereunder at the time prescribed therefore, or makes, willfully or otherwise, a false or fraudulent
return, the Secretary shall make such return from his own knowledge and from such information as he can obtain through testimony or otherwise.

26 U.S.C. § 6020(b)(1)

(1) In general. If any person required by the Internal Revenue Code or by the regulations to make a return ... fails to make such return at the time prescribed therefore, or makes, willfully or
otherwise, a false, fraudulent or frivolous return, the Commissioner or other authorized Internal Revenue Officer employee shall make such return from his own knowledge and from such
information as he can obtain through testimony or otherwise.

”Shall” in statutes is mandatory. Lexecon, Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 35 (1998) (“The mandatory ‘shall’ … normally creates an obligation impervious to judicial discretion.”) In fact, the mandate exists in order to provide the Service with a basis for alleging tax obligations at variance with what can be calculated on an allegedly false, fraudulent or frivolous return, or when no return has been filed at all.

"[T]he purpose of section 6020(b)(1) is to provide the Internal Revenue Service with a mechanism for assessing the civil liability of a taxpayer who has failed to file a return, [or, mutatis mutandis,
filed what the government deems to be a "false, fraudulent or frivolous" return]...” United States v. Lacy, 658 F.2d 396 (5th Cir. 1981) (citing United States v. Harrison, 486 F.2d 1397 (2d Cir.
1972)


---------

And what about the "person" to whom the FRP is only applicable to:

There are statutory restrictions upon whom penalties can be assigned. A cursory glance is all that is required to confirm that Declarant is NOT a “Person” and therefore does NOT qualify as one against whom a penalty for an alleged “frivolous” return can be assessed .

26 USC §6671(b) Rules for application of assessable penalties [including "frivolous" return]: (b) Person defined- The term “person”, as used in this subchapter, includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.


--------

So my question is... since ALL requirements MUST be met for a legal FRP to be assessed, why not use the above arguments to squash? Especially the 6020(b) Return... just demand the Return and if the 6020(b) Return cannot be produced then case closed, correct?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2019 2:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 7:40 am
Posts: 18
Quote:
So my question is... since ALL requirements MUST be met for a legal FRP to be assessed, why not use the above arguments to squash? Especially the 6020(b) Return... just demand the Return and if the 6020(b) Return cannot be produced then case closed, correct?


That makes sense.

But sometimes the purpose isn't simply to win, or to make it go away, but to completely understand and completely destroy each and every incorrect and/or unlawful thing or action, especially those things that the actual IRS agents see and use in order to carry out the improper actions commanded of them by their superiors.

If those types of things can be exposed to the actual agents carrying out the unlawful acts, then maybe, just maybe, it will jog their sense of integrity and they will start asking questions before signing and/or blindly following the manual. The form 8278 is just another one of those things. It is the only form that shows exactly which frivolous position was claimed. Without it, no friv pen can exist, even though the form itself is apparently fatally flawed.

I want the actual IRS agent to think twice the next time he/she is instructed to use the fake frivolous list to evaluate a return, and to alert his superior that the correct list is actually found on another part of the IRS website. I want the actual agents to start refusing to incorrectly fill out the Form 8278.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2019 3:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:15 pm
Posts: 23
Chad Hershey wrote:
I want the actual IRS agent to think twice the next time he/she is instructed to use the fake frivolous list to evaluate a return, and to alert his superior that the correct list is actually found on another part of the IRS website. I want the actual agents to start refusing to incorrectly fill out the Form 8278.


Good points Jeremy.

I just received my FOIA docs with no 6020(b) Return(s) included; and on 8278 10a. is Originator Signature (printed name of Ms. Wilson) and 11a. is Approver Signature (Name and Signature of Adam Fisher). Nowhere does it state Immediate Supervisor.

It does state at the top under Reminders: The signature of the immediate supervisor or designated higher level official is required in block 11a to meet provisions of IRC 6751.

Since it is signed by one Adam Fisher under line 11a. Approver Signature, this seems to meet the Immediate Supervisor Signature clause, does it not?

Also, the Position they gave me for 1 yr was ARG44 and for the other 2 years ARG32! Do they just make this crap up!!??

(32) A statutory notice of deficiency is invalid because the taxpayer to whom the notice was sent did not file an income tax return reporting the deficiency or because the
statutory notice of deficiency was unsigned or not signed by the Secretary of the Treasury or by someone with delegated authority.


My Return isn't even close to the Position stated above!

What am I supposed to do now that I have the FOIA docs? Do I just keep them for ammunition in case they try to collect on the FRPs in the future?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 4:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:03 pm
Posts: 14
Chad Hershey wrote:
Chad Hershey wrote:
What am I supposed to do now that I have the FOIA docs? Do I just keep them for ammunition in case they try to collect on the FRPs in the future?


Great news, Chad. Your case is now complete I think the next step would be to sue those bastards!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 7:40 am
Posts: 18
Chad,

Quote:
It does state at the top under Reminders: The signature of the immediate supervisor or designated higher level official is required in block 11a to meet provisions of IRC 6751.


All of my Form 8278s say "Manager" instead of "Immediate supervisor" at the top, which leads me to believe that the IRS updated that part of the form in response to the Dean Vigon Tax Court Case result that I posted in my first post in this thread. But I still do not think it meets the requirement very well, since some signatures are not legible. Any time they sign something I want the printed name of who is signing right beside it.

The Arg44 is expected, and is the only one I've heard of for CTC returns. I looked at the fake frivolous list that I presume agents use when classifying returns. Arg32 is this:

Quote:
IRC 3121 (FICA) - The individual contends that IRC section 3121 exempts the Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA) portion of earnings from the definition of wages and therefore from gross income for federal tax purposes. The individual attempts to reduce taxable income by his/her portion of withheld social security tax


You can verify that at the bottom of this page under af., which corresponds to the number 32:
https://www.irs.gov/irm/part25/irm_25-025-010r

I couldn't find that position on the official frivolous position list, although it does seem like it would be actually frivolous, given the way it is worded and that it uses the legal term "wages".

Quote:
What am I supposed to do now that I have the FOIA docs? Do I just keep them for ammunition in case they try to collect on the FRPs in the future?


I highly doubt they will ever try to directly collect on those fabricated FRP penalties. I think their main goals with FRPs are
1. To build up large sums of fake debt in order to offset possible future refunds, and
2. To serve as a deterrent to those who might think about filing the way that you did

Like James said, you can use them as a plaintiff in a lawsuit vs. the IRS, although you could still win without them. Either way the IRS will have the burden to provide evidence that you filed frivolous returns, once you state on the record (probably in your complaint) that your returns weren't frivolous. The burden would not be on you to prove that your returns were not frivolous (but even if it were, I think it would be simple enough to state that your returns are not frivolous and require the defendant to provide specific evidence of how it is frivolous). Having the Form 8278 just narrows down their claim to a specific frivolous position for a specific tax year, which makes it a little easier for you to trap them, I think, since they would then need to show that your return meets that specific frivolous position.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:15 pm
Posts: 23
Jeremy,

Yes, that seems to be the 'Fake List' Pete talks about here http://losthorizons.com/FRP/IRSFRPFraud.htm :

Quote:
So, faced with a conundrum insurmountable by legitimate means, the reality-thwarted agency has devised a "work-around". It has created a fake list, on which appears an entry meant to be taken as a CtC-relevant "position".

THE LIST WITH THE FAKE ENTRY appears on the IRS website at this page (at 25.25.10-1 near the bottom of the page). Here is the text of the entry meant to be taken as an expression of "the CtC position" (which will be variously designated on the list as either "44" or "AR"-- every now and then the IRS, perhaps hoping to sow confusion to save it from this exposé, switches from a numeric list to an alphabetic list, in which A = 1, Z = 26, AA =27, and AR = 44):

44. Zero Wages on a Substitute Form: Taxpayer generally attaches either a substitute Form W-2, Form 1099, or Form 4852 that shows "$0" wages or no wage information. A statement may be included indicating the taxpayer is rebutting information submitted to the IRS by the payer. Entries are usually for Federal Income Tax Withheld, Social Security Tax Withheld, and/or Medicare Tax Withheld. An explanation on the Form 4852 may cite "statutory language behind IRC 3401 and IRC 3121", or may include some reference to the company refusing to issue a corrected Form W-2 for fear of IRS retaliation.

As noted, this entry is a complete fabrication. It doesn't appear in the actual official list at all, and never has.

Here is the actual, official and valid "frivolous Argument 44" from the actual list published by the Secretary:

(44) A taxpayer’s income is not taxable if the taxpayer assigns or attributes the income to a religious organization (a “corporation sole” or ministerial trust) claimed to be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3), or similar arguments described as frivolous in Rev. Rul. 2004-27, 2004-1 C.B. 625.

Plainly, there isn't even a pretense of a relationship between the fake-list "Argument 44" and the real Argument 44.

Further, not only is the fake-list "position" a false representation of an official listed position, but as will be seen when reading it through with this in mind, it isn't even a "position" at all. The fake-list "Argument 44" is just a description of how forms are filled out. An actual "position" is not WHAT you do, or HOW you do it, it is WHY you did whatever you did.


Official list of Frivolous Positions in here: http://losthorizons.com/tax/2010FrivolousPositions.pdf

So ARG32 is what I stated above:

Quote:
(32) A statutory notice of deficiency is invalid because the taxpayer to whom the notice was sent did not file an income tax return reporting the deficiency or because the statutory notice of deficiency was unsigned or not signed by the Secretary of the Treasury or by someone with delegated authority.

So with that said, the FRP the gave me for those 2 years (well all 3 actually) are completely fabricated... unreal!

Jeremy Lee wrote:
All of my Form 8278s say "Manager" instead of "Immediate supervisor" at the top, which leads me to believe that the IRS updated that part of the form in response to the Dean Vigon Tax Court Case result that I posted in my first post in this thread. But I still do not think it meets the requirement very well, since some signatures are not legible. Any time they sign something I want the printed name of who is signing right beside it.


There is a signed and printed name of one Adam Fisher on Line 11a... so I guess they are attempting to clean up their act from that standpoint!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 7:40 am
Posts: 18
Chad,
Thanks for the info, especially the ARG32 thing and that they are cleaning up their act on the Form 8278. Yeah you are right about the official and fake lists. I was just trying to figure out what the agent might have intended, trying to give them the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes making sense of their madness and fabrication leads nowhere.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group