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

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

                  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

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