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

Every Which Way But Loose- Part III

Since August of 2003, when the revelations of CtC were first published, the IRS has been engaged in a desperate struggle to regain its hold of fear and confusion over those now equipped with an understanding of the long-hidden secrets of the "income" tax, and to stop that understanding from spreading.  We have seen, for instance:

• two revampings of the Form 4852 during that time-- both attempting to obscure the scope of that form's proper use;

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

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

• a multitude of constantly tweaked agency "FAQ" and "Truth About Frivolous Argument" publications seeking to instill doubts about what is taught about the law in CtC in the minds of careless readers, worthy of attention only in order to enjoy the agency's entertaining efforts to imply what it cannot simply declare, but wishes a naive reader to take from the reading.

We have also seen a series of transformations in the means by which the occasional loose-cannon IRS staffer attempts to persuade a CtC-educated filer to stand down.

For a while, fairly brazen declarations that a filing meets the statutory definition of a "frivolous return" was the popular approach.  Brazen or not, of course, these notices were always mere exercises in intimidation, which careful analysis readily revealed to be fallacious.

Everyone must come to his or her own conclusions, but consider: The notices strive hard to give the impression that the tax agency can unilaterally disregard the target's filing, and can tack on a penalty as well.  BUT they say that the agency will generously refrain from imposing the penalty, if only the target withdraws the original filed testimony and replaces it with what the agency wants attested-to (which, remember, the target is simultaneously being told would be legally meaningless, because the agency can unilaterally disregard that original testimony at will...).

What is being implied is that, either way, the amount of tax owed is going to end up being whatever the agency dictates-- the filer's return notwithstanding.  The only optional element is the additional penalty, which the agency is offering to forego out of the goodness of its heart.

Well, if this is true..., WHY SEND THIS "LETTER" AT ALL?  If the agency has the power to unilaterally make these decisions, there is absolutely no point to asking the target to do anything!

If the agency (or its client) has the power it is suggesting, its correspondent would simply get a notice along the following lines: "Dear Mr. XXX: We have calculated your tax liability for 200X, and converted $XXX of your withheld property in escrow to our ownership.  An invoice for the outstanding balance [if any] is attached.  Your filed return was frivolous, and provided us with the authority to add a $XXX penalty to your tax liability.  We have [added or foregone] this penalty." 

After all, if the agency has the unilateral authority it is attempting to suggest that it does, why would it care whether another return was filed?  (Readers of 'Cracking the Code...' will know the answer to that, of course.)

Instead, the agency DOES make this "threatening" request; and/or "proposes" calculated liabilities to which it asks its target's agreement in order to have effect (see examples of this here).  Sometimes it begins sending endless "levy notices" to the unbending filer (which notices, insofar as they concern years when only accurate, educated returns have been filed, only allege liability for a penalty, and not for any tax related to the year in question-- even when the target has received a complete refund of every penny withheld or paid-in in connection with that year...).  The sum of all of this is, of course, that the agency DOESN'T have the unilateral authority which it suggests that it does, and where accurate, educated filings are concerned, its "frivolous letters" are just exactly that: frivolous letters.

Bothke v. Terry, 713 F. 2d 1405, at 1414 (1983)

Nonetheless, as more and more warriors have forcefully pointed out to more and more IRS workers that inappropriately sending such threatening-looking letters cuts very close to the criminal under a variety of federal and state laws, the tax agency has scrambled to adjust.  For one thing, the "frivolous" notices have been carefully and repeatedly modified toward ever-more obvious legal meaninglessness, in order to deflect potential charges of constructive fraud, witness tampering, extortion, etc.

At the same time, these legally dicey threatening-sounding notices have been largely replaced by a comical kind of delay tactic, in which the agency sits on a filing in silence, and when contacted with an inquiry to the effect of "Where the h*ll is my property?!", responds with a claim that the agency can't find the filer's return and a request that the offended filer please send a fresh copy, or a series of "We need 45 days to look into the matter-- please be patient-- don't call us, we'll call you..." notices.

In this series, we take a close look at many of these gimmicks, ploys and dodges in order to accurately perceive their true character, and take in and appreciate the underlying message, which is that efforts like these are engaged in only when the corrupt actor has no real basis for its actions, and is simply being turned every which way but loose by the liberating truth.  The action in these episodes will range from the simply silly one-shot stalls like those in Episode I to the drawn-out, elaborate slap-downs like what you'll see in Episode X, and everything in between.

Enjoy.

EVERY WHICH WAY BUT LOOSE- XXV

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:

EVERY WHICH WAY BUT LOOSE- XXVI

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:

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

..and then threw in the towel:

EVERY WHICH WAY BUT LOOSE- XXVII

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:

EVERY WHICH WAY BUT LOOSE- XXVIII

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...

EVERY WHICH WAY BUT LOOSE- XXIX

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!

EVERY WHICH WAY BUT LOOSE- XXX

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:

EVERY WHICH WAY BUT LOOSE- XXXI

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...

 

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,

EVERY WHICH WAY BUT LOOSE- XXXII

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- XXXIII

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- XXXIV

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:

 

EVERY WHICH WAY BUT LOOSE- XXXV

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- XXXVI

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...

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: