The liberating truth about the "income" tax is turning those
who would evade it
Every Which Way But Loose Part III
A collection of undeniable evidence of the
correctness of
CtC
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 total amount reclaimed by these good Americans so far is
upward of several billion dollars.
During the same period,
the IRS has 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. This effort has involved the resort to many (and
increasingly) bizarre evasions and theatrics.
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 dramatic 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 takes place only after unambiguous, 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 hundreds of thousands of complete refunds issued over all
those years now from the feds and more than three dozen state
and local tax agencies are a sustained "slip through a crack"!).
Here it is in a word:
NOT ONE OF THE
SURRENDERS DOCUMENTED IN THIS SERIES WOULD OR COULD HAPPEN
UNLESS THE FILINGS AND CLAIMS MADE WERE CORRECT AND PROPER UNDER
THE LAW. NOT
ONE. Each of the victories
presented here took place with the knowledge and participation
of tax agency personnel. In almost every case, those victories
took place over and despite the outright resistance of those
officials.
Similarly, NOT ONE of the contortions and evasions
documented in this series would be attempted unless the filings
and claim against which they are deployed is correct and proper
under the law. It is the insurmountably correct character of
these educated filings that compels the tax agencies to resort
to smoke, mirrors and bluster.
Because these things DID and DO happen, the correctness of
CtC-educated filings and claims, and the view of the law on
which they are based, is indisputable.
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 capacity. You 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:
Plus,
...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
|
|