The Lost Horizons Forum

A meeting place for the CtC-empowered.
It is currently Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:41 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: The Beard Standard
PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 1:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 3:50 am
Posts: 5
I just got off the phone with an IRS Supervisor, Steve Dison (702) 868-5392, who is determined to withdraw over $11,000 from my mom's bank account today based on a lien against her property.

I told him that he had no right to strip her of her property when the IRS refuses to even process her returns. I told him that if the IRS finds errors on the returns then they are obliged to process them and correct them with a 6020(b) return.

His first response was to say that the 6020(b) was only related to those who fail to file a return. So I read the section of code to him where it states, "or makes, willfully or otherwise, a false or fraudulent return..."

So I said, if you've found errors on the return then you are obliged to process the returns properly.

His response was interesting, and he was very forceful. He said, "You are absolutely incorrect! IRS policy specifically allows us not to process returns. If the IRS deems a return to be frivolous, then it is considered invalid and they DO NOT have to process it." He was confident enough with his response as to give me pause. I asked him to cite the policy and he only said "the IRS manual".

So I looked it up and found it in the Frivolous Return Program of the IRS manual.

https://www.irs.gov/irm/part25/irm_25-025-010r

25.25.10.2.1 (06-08-2018)
Submission Processing Identification and Processing of Frivolous Filings


Frivolous returns may be valid or invalid. A valid return is one that meets the requirements to start the limitations period for assessment under IRC Section 6501. Frivolous returns are normally considered "valid or processable" , under IRC Section 6611(g)(2) (although there are some exceptions) if they meet the following four-point criteria from Beard v Commissioner, 82 T.C. 766, 777(1984), aff’d per curiam, 793 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1986) A frivolous processable return is one that meets the four point criteria below:

1. the return must contain sufficient data to calculate a tax liability
2. it must purport to be a return
3. it must include an honest and reasonable attempt to satisfy the requirements of the tax law
4. it must be signed under penalties of perjury

A frivolous return that does not meet the above four criteria should not be processed. In order to be processable, the return must comply with the Beard Standard. Invalid unprocessable returns [i]lack sufficient data and cannot be input to the computer.[i] See IRM 25.6.1.6.16, Processable – Unprocessable Returns, for additional information.


HOW CLEAR IS THAT!?!?

So once again, the IRS is twisting the facts and dodging the truth. Sure the IRS has the authority to not process frivolous returns. Granted. But only if the returns fail to pass the Beard Standard!!!

In my mother's case, 1. Sufficient data is included on the return, 2. The return is purported to be a return, 3. We already sent the IRS many communications reasserting the truthfulness and sincerity of the returns, and 4. The returns were signed.

See ya in federal district court when we file our complaint on May 2nd! :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Beard Standard
PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2019 3:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:36 am
Posts: 20
#1 and #3 of the Beard Test contain 'weasel words'. That's where they can deny you, or claim your returns failed to stand for the Test. Just my two cents.
Good luck.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Beard Standard
PostPosted: Mon May 13, 2019 11:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 3:50 am
Posts: 5
Absolutely. I agree.

#3 seems easier to me. I can submit an affidavit and testify before the judge.

It seems to me that #1 is the trickiest one since they might presume to judge the accuracy of the data contained on the return rather than leaving it to IRS processing as they should. They might assert that zeroes are equal to no information at all - an obviously bad conclusion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Beard Standard
PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2019 7:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:15 pm
Posts: 26
Some information I came across:

It is very important to realize that neither a lien nor a Notice of Levy issued by the IRS are valid absent a valid court order signed by a magistrate! If these forms have nothing but the name of IRS employees on them, they are a fraud!

The IRS often deceives financial institutions and county recorders throughout the nation into surrendering property of taxpayers by issuing fraudulent “Notice of Levy” or lien documents. These fraudulent Notices of Levy, printed on IRS Form 668-A(c)(DO) documents quote portions of 26 U.S.C. 6331 but conveniently leave out paragraph (a), which specifically says that the levy can only occur against employees of the federal government. The clerks of employers and financial institutions who receive these levies usually have no legal training and will just surrender the money or property of the accused without asking even a single question. They won’t even verify that the levy or lien is signed by a magistrate. Oftentimes, they are threatened by the IRS with an audit or levy or seizure of their own if they don’t comply. This weak link in our property rights is at the heart of how the IRS continues to successfully collect a tax that few Americans actually owe. This unethical application of the tax laws is called violation of due process, and it is quite commonplace. The federal courts, however, have said that the issue of a "Notice of Levy" does not constitute a valid levy. Below is one example:

A "levy" requires that property be brought into legal custody through seizure, actual or constructive, levy being an absolute appropriation in law of property levied on, and mere notice of intent to levy is insufficient. United States v. O'Dell, 6 Cir., 1947, 160 F.2d 304, 307. Accord, In re Holdsworth, D.C.N.J. 1953, 113 F.Supp. 878, 888; United States v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., D.C.Conn. 1942, 146 F.Supp. 30, 37, in which Judge Hincks observed that he could "find no statute which says that a mere notice shall constitute a 'levy.'" There are cases which hold that a warrant for distraint is necessary to constitute a levy. Givan v. Cripe, 7 Cir., 1951, 187 F.2d 225; United States v. O'Dell, supra. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit state in is opinion, 221 F.2d at page 642, "These sections [26 U.S.C. §§3690-3697] require that levy by a deputy collector be accompanied by warrants of distraint [issued by a judge in a legal proceeding]." In re Brokol Manufacturing Co., supra.

I am constrained to conclude that a levy upon both tangible and intangible property under §3692 requires the execution of warrant for distraint and then effective only to amounts affixed thereon. As noted above, the Court of Appeals for this Circuit declared when this matter was before it that §§3690-3697 "require that a levy by a deputy collector be accompanied by warrants of distraint."

The distress authorized by §3690 is different from anything know to the common law, both because it authorizes sale of the property seized, and because it extends to other personality than chattels. By its very nature it requires that demands of procedural due process of law be rigorously honored.
[Freeman v. Mayer, 152 F.Supp. 383 (1957)]

Liens and levies issued by the IRS absent a court order are both a type of distraint, which is defined as follows:

distraint: the act or process of distraint, whereby a person (the DISTRAINOR), without prior court approval, seizes the personal property of another located upon the distrainor's land in satisfaction of a claim, as a pledge for the performance of a duty, or in reparation of an injury. Where goods are seized in satisfaction of a claim, the distrainor can hold the goods until the claim is paid and, failing payment, may sell them in satisfaction. Originally, distress was a landlord's remedy (see lien [LANDORD'S LIEN], 324 A.2d 102, 104) and was distinguishable from attachment, which is a court-ordered seizure of goods or property. The persons whose goods are distrained upon has recourse against the wrongful distrainor in replevin.

Distraint has been superseded in most states of the United States by statutory provisions for debt collection, the enforcement of security interests, and landlord-tenant relations.

The important phrase from above is “without prior court approval”. The supreme Court, in the case of Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145, (1959) has stated that our tax system is based on voluntary compliance and not distraint:

“Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint.”

This indicates that IRS actions to lien or levy the property of taxpayers are not allowed absent a court order, but the IRS continues to flagrantly violate due process anyway. How do they do it? They use a combination of “official immunity” and ignorance and apathy of the abused Citizen to perpetuate this fraud. Another reason why people continue to tolerate this is because of the high cost of litigating to defend their rights. After the IRS STEALS their money, they can’t afford to defend their legal rights because they can’t afford a high-priced lawyer. For instance, many people, after having been the subject of an IRS lien or levy, will just throw up their hands and say something like:

“No matter what I lose, because it would cost me more to hire a lawyer to litigate to defend my rights than it would to just pay the tax.”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Beard Standard
PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2019 7:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:15 pm
Posts: 26
Have you done a FOIA request to obtain the actual Levy Form 668-B and 668-C.

Notice of Levy is NOT a Levy.

Also, is you Mother a PERSON subject to Levy? Look up IRC Section 6331(a) and 6332(f)

Also, look up Pocket Commission. It is my understanding that all Revenue Officers/Agents carry a non-enforceable badge; most (if not all) are not aware of this as they are told otherwise.

Sherry Jackson, Former IRS Agent: Pocket Commissions

There's another little secret that the I.R.S agents don't know that are out there right now, and that I didn't know. It's about the Pocket Commission. The thing that we carried and flipped out to people to show our supposed authority. Pocket Commissions are either categorized as enforcement or non-enforcement.

Enforcement commissions may be issued only to special agents, which is the criminal investigation division or inspectors which is the internal security division.

The non-enforcement Pocket Commission are those issued to all other authorized employees. Now I had a non-enforcement commission. Now I and other internal revenue agents and officers carry non-enforcement commissions. This commission has a picture of the agent with United States Department of Treasury internal revenue service at the top. At the bottom it has the name of the agent, the signature of the agent, and a statement. It says the name of the agent whose signature and picture appear above is duly commissioned as an internal revenue agent or internal revenue officer, and has authority to perform all duties conferred upon such officers under all laws and regulations administered by the internal revenue service including the authority to investigate and to require and receive information as to all matters related to such laws and regulations.

The difference between the non-enforcement commission and the enforcement commission is a serial number that ends in A or E. If the serial number ends in E that is an enforcement commission, such as the one criminal investigation carries and they have certain enforcement authority. The internal revenue agents and officers have commissions that end in A. Now that's the non-enforcement commission.

What does it mean to carry a non-enforcement commission? To me it means that I didn't have any enforcement authority. So I was out on the front lines with no authority whatsoever, flippin' this little badge around in businesses and in front of individuals and to banks with no authority, and I believe that is so wrong. So these people really don't know they have no idea of what's going on.

So here the agents are carrying these badges and they're not even aware of what an A or an E means. That's not part of the education when they're employed. Is that correct?

That is correct. That is not part of the education. We were just told that this badge gives us the authority to go out and ask for these records and people don't know it either. So they were giving it to us. So they had no idea.

More...

Revenue officers and revenue agents are included in this group. All of them carry NON-enforcement pocket commissions. All of them engage in "enforcement actions" in the routine course of doing their jobs. Because they are "field" agents, they are most visible with the public. They are trained that they MUST warn taxpayers that they will take "enforcement actions" should a citizen fail to carry out their demands and the corresponding deadlines. One of the criteria in their annual appraisal considers whether or not they are consistently making this "warning of enforcement action".

Although IRS management does consider these employees to be engaging in enforcement, even though they carry nonenforcement pocket commissions, here is a brief explanation as to why the agents, generally, do not break the law when they do these "enforcement activities".

Example: An RO issues a Notice of Levy to a bank; its just a piece of paper and is not a legal instrument that compels the banker to send IRS your money; no court order, no warrant of distraint accompanies this document. The banker, because of ignorance or fear, or both, usually cooperates and sends your money to IRS. Did the IRS agent really do anything, other than bluff the banker? The agent, in this typical, everyday example of "enforced collection actions", did not actually perform any true enforcement; the Notice of Levy caused the banker to think that he was required to put the contents of your bank account into the IRS agent's possession. He did no real enforcement, he has no authority to do any real enforcement, and IRS knows this by virtue of the fact that they gave the RO a "non" enforcement pocket commission! This concept can be applied to virtually any of the other "enforcement activities" that RO's and RA's engage in.

And...

In this article you see IRS claims to take enforcement actions. My [John Turner, ex IRS agent] comments about this post have to do with nonenforcement pocket commissions as related to this issue.

For this type of "enforcement actions" people should know it will involve revenue officers (collectors) and revenue agents (auditors), and all of them have nonenforcement pocket commissions.

IRS considers the use of a summons to be a form of enforcement action. A Notice of Levy, a Levy, a Seizure and sale, a Notice of Federal Tax Lien (NFTL), all are considered to be "enforcement actions". IRS allows its employees to make a"dummy" tax return if you don't voluntarily file one. The courts up held (I love it when we get to use that phrase) that dummy returns are not valid or legal returns. Yet they have devised a slick process, a program, not based on law but appears to be based on law, to make a return, then get the tax assessed, then take "enforcement actions" to take your property. They consider that process, too, "enforcement".

IRS will say these types of actions are administrative enforcement, not the "other" type of enforcement. The "other" type is in regard to criminal investigations and Special Agents from CID. Those employees carry enforcement pocket commissions and do such things as making arrests and using deadly force if necessary. Sometimes they seize property that has allegedly been used in commission of, or aiding the commission of a crime. Their commissions are issued bythe enforcement wing of the Treasury Department.

The nonenforcement pocket commission is issued to the "enforcement agents", Revenue Officers and Revenue Agents among others, who take "enforcement actions" for the purpose of collecting delinquent taxes. Yet, IRS says their enforcement powers are administrative. We knew that!

They have given RO's and RA's nonenforcement commissions because they do not have authority to take any enforcement actions, yet they continually tell the public, as evidenced by this article, that their agents take "enforcement actions", and they continue to be allowed to get away with seizures of private property, which reinforces the public's belief that they have the authority to take such "enforcement actions".

The time has come for people to tell Congress they will no longer tolerate the taking of their property by the IRS without due process of law.

If they can pass an income tax law that is constitutional and required for those of us who work for a living that might be different. We do have a constitutional income tax law. (Hint: it is constitutional because it is not required for most of us. The day that they make it actually required for people working for a living is the day it will become unconstitutional) Problem is, we also have an agency "enforcing" that law using unconstitutional means. The courts allow it. So does the public! When will the public say "enough is enough"? If they want to take property to force the payment of delinquent income tax then they can go through the legal hoops like all other creditors in this country. That is called due process of law.

The constitution tells us what the government must do in order to lawfully take our property. Then the IRC seems to indicate that the IRS can bypass the constitution and due process and take your property. That is not possible. The IRC cannot overrule the U.S. Constitution. But in practice, the IRC has been interpreted as if it is the higher, the superior law in this respect.

The truth is, the IRC does not usurp our supreme law of the land. It is just enforced as if it is superior. That is why IRS agents, "enforcing" civil statutes for payment of income tax, are issued nonenforcement commissions: the IRS really does understand the lack of true authority they give to the agents. The agents have no idea. The agents need to learn.

Time to "Just Say No!" to agents missapplying the law to steal our property, a law that doesn't apply to most of us just making a living. All of this misapplication has been allowed because of the premise that the State has a compelling need not to have to experience delays in the collection of its revenue. What they have done in their justification and misapplication is bypass due process. Well, I am all for the government being able to expeditiously collect all revenue that it is legally entitled to. But I cannot support the bastardization of our Constitution by our government wanting to illegally collect a revenue that is not even truly due from most of the people involved. How about this: how about the American people waking up to the notion that we the people, as INDIVIDUALS, have a compelling need to KEEP our hard-earned fruits of our labor and will not allow the government to STEAL it?

There are plenty of opportunities for our government to collect revenue it needs without using deception against its people. The government knows how to collect revenue without stealing it from us. They also know how to do it in such a way to protect its compelling need to avoid delay in obtaining the revenue. But that would mean giving up the control they have on individual citizens via the federal income tax. It is time for Americans to tell Congress that WE will protect our compelling needs. We will no longer be lied to and deceived about the truth of the income tax system. We will no longer tolerate a delay of OUR revenue because of illegal withholding from our paychecks. We will no longer allow IRS to steal our property through illegal seizures because our compelling needs as individuals is protected by the supreme law of the land.

Nonenforcement pocket commissions are issued because they truly have no enforcement authority over most of us. They have the appearance of enforcement power. I believe it is patriotic for citizens and businesses to pay all lawful taxes. I also believe it is a terrible mistake to believe that the idea of patriotism should be associated with the current system of income taxation. There is so much deception used in administering the income tax, in tricking IRS employees about what their actual authority is, in fooling citizens to voluntarily file returns, it is actually just the opposite. It is UN patriotic to support the current income tax.

IRS to clamp down on tax shelters Identity of two firms couldn't be confirmed
By Cassell Bryan-Low
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL July 9 -


Last edited by Chad Hershey on Tue May 14, 2019 9:00 am, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Beard Standard
PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2019 7:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:15 pm
Posts: 26
COURT ORDER NECESSARY

Page 57(16) of the Internal Revenue Manual entitled "Legal Reference Guide for Revenue Officers" confirms (in the upper right hand corner of the page) that a Court Order (warrant of distraint) is necessary.  We say "confirms" because the Manual is merely referring to established principles of law, it is not in and off itself the law that requires it.  Moreover, the IR Manual shows that the IRS even agrees with those established principles and encourages their agents to abide by those principles by citing the authority of United States v. O' Dell which says that a proper levy against amounts held as due and owing by employers, banks, stockbrokers, etc., must issue from a warrant of distraint (Court Order) and not by mere notice.  The O'Dell Court specifically stated that:

"The method of accomplishing a levy ... is the issuing of warrants of distraint ..." 

    and that the Internal Revenue Service must also serve

        "... with the notice of levy, [a] copy of the warrants of distraint and [the] notice of lien."

    The court emphasized that the

        "... Levy is not effected by mere notice."

    Agents who bother to read the Manual know that the "warrant of distraint" mentioned above, is the Court Order which is required pursuant to IRC 7403.20.

        IRC 7403 - Action to enforce lien or to subject property to payment of tax

            (c) Adjudication and decree: The court shall, after the parties have been duly notified of the action, proceed to adjudicate all matters involved therein and finally determine the merits of all claims to and liens upon the property.

In a more recent decision involving the tax indebtedness of Stephens Equipment Co., Inc., debtor," (54 BR, 626 [D.C. 1985]), the court said:

    "The role of the district court in issuing an order for the seizure of property in satisfaction of tax indebtedness is substantially similar to the court's role in issuing a criminal search warrant.  In either case, there must be a sufficient showing of probable cause."

More importantly, the court held that in order to substantiate such an Order, the IRS must present the court with certain validation.  The court stated that:

    "... to effect a levy on the taxpayer's property [an Order] must contain specific facts providing the following information:
An assessment of tax has been made against the taxpayer, including the date on which the assessment was made, the amount of the assessment, and the taxable period for which the assessment was made;Notice and demand have been properly made, including the date of such notice and demand and the manner in which notice was given and demand made;The taxpayer has neglected or refused to pay said assessment within ten days after notice and demand; ...Property, subject to seizure and particularly described presently exists at the premises sought to be searched and that said property either belongs to the taxpayer or is property upon which a lien exists for the payment of the taxes; andFacts establishing that probable cause exists to believe that the taxpayer is liable for the tax assessed.Is it any wonder that the IRS cannot seek a Court Order?  Nevertheless, the "Court Order" is a statutory requirement for the levy procedure because it establishes the validity of the IRS's claim to the third party to whom the levy is presented.  Proper procedures assure the third party that the lien and subsequent levy have been executed in a lawful manner.  The "Court Order" also protects the third party from a liability which may arise under C.F.R. 26 (Code of Federal Regulations) 301.6332-1(c) which states in part:

    "... Any person who mistakenly surrenders to the United States property or rights to property not properly subject to levy [i.e., the bank manager] is not relieved from liability to a third party who owns the property ..."

And, the Court Order prevents some agent from taking a "shortcut" as previously discussed.  These details were brought to the attention of a corporation who had received a "Notice of Levy" on one its employees by the Fellowship's National Worker's Rights Committee (NWRC).
  
The NWRC not only wrote to the employer, but in a telephone conversation, one of our paralegals explained the limited nature of the authority of Section 6331(a).  The president of the corporation was amazed and wrote to the IRS agent who had issued the levy to inform him that they were not a federal "employer" as mentioned within that Section and that they could not honor a levy without proper authority.  The agent began to harass the president of the corporation by paying a visit to each of his neighbors but the president would not budge.  Instead, the president of the corporation informed the agent that if he did not stop harassing him, he would sue the agent, whereupon, the agent backed off.  

It is amazing what happens when people insist that the IRS obey the law, but what is more amazing is that more and more people are doing this each and every day and the political pressure is now becoming impossible for the IRS to ignore.  According to former Commissioner Shirley Peterson in a speech before the National Association of Enrolled Agents in Nevada, on August 26, 1993, as of this year, 1 in 5 people have now stopped filing and the situation is out of control.  We would say just the opposite - it is finally becoming controllable because the public seems to have developed the will to know the law and confine the IRS within the law.

-------------

The relation-back doctrine resolves otherwise ambiguous lien and levy powers codified at §§ 6321, et seq., & 6331, et seq., of the Internal Revenue Code. Cause for a lien or levy may arise at the time someone fails to perform a duty imposed by internal revenue laws of the United States, but the encumbrance, seizure, garnishment or whatever is not perfected (does not come into lawful existence and is not enforceable) until it has been properly adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction. If a seizure is on land within States of the Union, the court must sit as a court of common law.

------------

Since promulgation of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, the Form 668-B Levy has been the proper form for legitimate levies. The “notice of levy” merely conveys information and is supposed to provide notice to the party a levy is executed against, not third parties.[6] The notice of levy, which is commonly sent to third-party custodians of financial assets, is not an enforceable levy instrument. The Form 668-B Levy must be accompanied by the applicable writ issued from a court of competent jurisdiction in order for it to be enforceable – third-party custodians are supposed to receive the actual levy and writ.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Beard Standard
PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2019 7:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:15 pm
Posts: 26
If you are assuming that the presence of the number zero (0.00) on different lines of the 1040X was used as justification to label the return frivolous, please note that according to United States v. Long, 618 F.2d 74 (9th Cir. 1980), a return containing zeros on most of the lines and signed by the taxpayer without modifications, additions, or deletions to the attestation statement is sufficient to calculate tax liability, and, therefore, constitutes a valid return


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Beard Standard
PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2019 9:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:15 pm
Posts: 26
I'll send you a Levy .pdf, hit me up on Telegram: https://t.me/btchersh


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Beard Standard
PostPosted: Fri May 17, 2019 8:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:15 pm
Posts: 26
Sam Howell wrote:
His first response was to say that the 6020(b) was only related to those who fail to file a return.


This completely goes against what is on the Lost Horizons website. Pete has consistently stated that a 6020(b) return in mandatory (for them to collect) when a return is deemed Frivolous...

http://losthorizons.com/FRP/6020(b)AndFRPs.htm

26 C.F.R. § 301.6020-1(b) Execution of returns-

(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.


So if you are incorrect, as he stated so emphatically, what is the law? It seems he was acting like he is taught to act, to become aggressive and to shoot down any comments one may have to the contrary, even though those comments are the truth.

They may not have to process the "Frivolous Return" but they still need to produce a 6020(b) return of their to be able to collect the penalty, correct? All penalties are collected as taxes and to collect a tax a return has to be on file, hence the need to file a 6020(b) return, correct?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Beard Standard
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 9:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:15 pm
Posts: 26
On top of all of the above, let's look at the code:

26 USC § 6702 - Frivolous tax submissions

(a) Civil penalty for frivolous tax returns
A person shall pay a penalty of $5,000 if—
(1) such person files what purports to be a return of a tax imposed by this title but which—
(A) does not contain information on which the substantial correctness of the self-assessment may be judged, or
(B) contains information that on its face indicates that the self-assessment is substantially incorrect, and
(2) the conduct referred to in paragraph (1)—
(A) is based on a position which the Secretary has identified as frivolous under subsection (c), or
(B) reflects a desire to delay or impede the administration of Federal tax laws.


If you look at the 3176C letter you received it states "-your information is based on positions identified as frivolous; -your information reflects a desire to delay or impede the administration of federal tax laws". As Pete says, "Alone, those characteristics (-your information is based on positions identified as frivolous; -your information reflects a desire to delay or impede the administration of federal tax laws) DON'T apply to a return AT ALL. Neither can apply UNLESS and UNTIL one or the other of the ADDITIONAL characteristics specified in 6702(a)(1)(A) or (B) have been found to be true (characteristics rendering a return a mechanically-defective affidavit due to a failure to contain information be which the substantial correctness of the self-assessment can be judged or the presence of information which, on its face, indicates that the self-assessment is substantially incorrect, either of which then has to ALSO be found to be due to a position identified as frivolous under 6702(c) or be manifestly due to a desire to delay or impede the administration of federal tax laws). Neither of these primary required characteristics are even alluded-to on this scary notice."

Pete continues, "If the notice (3176C) REALLY were claiming that a RETURN had been determined to be frivolous, it would necessarily refer to both categories of elements necessary for a return to be "frivolous" and subject to a penalty. That is, it would allude to both the two characteristics the notice DOES allude to, AND the two from 6702(a)(1) that it does not."

The fact that they leave out even mentioning 6702(a)(1)(A) or (B) in the 3176C notice tells you that the return is NOT frivolous. Why? Again, BOTH 6702 (a)(1) and (2) have to be met in order to be deemed frivolous and there is no mention of 6702(a)(1) in the 3176C letters.

http://losthorizons.com/FRP/ParsingFriv ... ctions.htm


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Beard Standard
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 4:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 3:50 am
Posts: 5
Chad! I super-appreciate all the excellent input and perspective. I'll reach out to you soon on Telegram. I just need some time to settle out some things.

Thanks so much!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Beard Standard
PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2019 3:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:15 pm
Posts: 26
Yeah, get a hold of me Sam as I would like to discuss how you are approaching this.

https://t.me/btchersh


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 4 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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