Finally! The Director Of The Ogden Compliance Center "Explains" An IRS "Frivolous" Assertion!

A recently CtC-educated American who secured his first victory for the rule of law this past August-- the return of all property withheld from him during 2008 and given over to the feds in connection with the "income" tax-- has run into a bit of "balkiness" from his public servants in getting amended and late-filed returns for previous years processed.  This warrior for the truth and the law promptly wrote one of the U.S. senators from his home state asking for some assistance.

The senator didn't offer any help, and instead simply handed the questions back off to the same agency that was causing the problem in the first place.  However, in replying to the hand-off, someone signing off as "Henry Slaughter, Director, Campus Compliance Operations, Ogden" actually listed some "frivolous positions" allegedly detected by the IRS (through ESP, it seems) on the filings being evaded:

This is the first time I've seen such boldness by the agency, which usually doesn't dare to expose its "frivolous" pretenses this way and instead sticks tightly to the much safer practice of simply making vague references to "frivolous positions" and threats of penalties (as extensively documented and discussed in dozens of case studies in the 'Every Which Way But Loose' series.  I guess this kind of arrogant disrespect won't quite do when responding to a member of the political class, as opposed to merely one of "We the People"...

Regardless, one can't help but appreciate the opportunity to finally learn the basis for the "frivolous" scare-notice harassments and IRS refusals to abide by the law and process refund claims with which some filers have to cope now and then.  First, let's look at a representative sample of the eight filings involved here:

Now let's have a look at the "positions" allegedly detected by the agency on this good American's documents:

So what we are to understand here is that the IRS somehow concludes from a filing which merely disputes someone else's assertions as to the amounts paid which qualify as ""wages" as defined in 26 USC 3401(a)" and/or ""wages" as defined at 26 USC 3121(a)", that the filing expresses the "position" that "compliance with the internal revenue laws is voluntary or optional and not required by law", and in particular by a bizarre subset of that "position" holding that:

1). Compliance with the internal revenue laws is voluntary or optional and not required by law because a "taxpayer" (that is, someone subject to the internal revenue laws") who actually HAS received "taxable income" during the period involved has an option under the law to file a return saying that he has not;

 

2). Compliance with the internal revenue laws is voluntary or optional and not required by law because someone who actually qualifies as an "employer" as defined in the "withholding" provisions of the law ISN'T legally obligated to withhold from actual "wages" as defined in the law when and if paid to an actual "employee" as defined in the law; and

 

3). Compliance with the internal revenue laws is voluntary or optional and not required by law because the only people subject to the tax are those who have contracted with the government by applying for a governmental privilege or benefit such as holding a Social Security number, and those who have contracted with the government may choose to revoke the contract at will.

AND, the "service" also detects the "position" that "only certain types of persons subject to the internal revenue laws ("taxpayers") are subject to income and employment taxes.

Wow!  These folks are GOOD!  They can read between the lines even when there aren't any lines!

Okay, maybe "good" isn't the right word...

But they're really, really creative!

Personally, I don't see where this filer's return documents say (or imply) that he actually received "taxable income" but takes the position that he has the option of saying that he did not.

Nor do I see where this filer's documents say (or imply) a "position" that someone who actually qualifies as an "employer" as relevantly defined in the law isn't obligated to withhold when paying "wages".

I also can't see where this filer's documents express (or imply) the view that compliance with the tax laws is voluntary because the only people subject to the tax are those who have contracted with the government by applying for a government privilege or benefit such as "holding a Social Security number" (gotta admire the craft in THAT dodgy construction), and such contracts can be broken at will; or the view that only certain types of "taxpayers" are subject to "income" or "employment" taxes.

I don't see a single word about any of this on this filer's return.