Home -- Site Map -- Search

 

The IRS Response To Phillip Bates' Refund Claim For 2002

Although he has already received complete refunds of everything withheld for federal income taxes in 2001 and 2003, Phillip's 2002 claim is being made the object of a new IRS ploy intended to delay the return of his money.  No doubt the 'service' also hopes to convince Phillip that there is something improper about his filing, without be able to actually come right out and say such a thing (which would, of course, be untrue).  After filing his claim for refund of money improperly withheld from him in 2002, Phillip received a series of related correspondences.  The first was from the Austin, Texas IRS center:

 

 

So, Austin sends Phillip's return to Ogden, Utah.  Ogden then sends him this:

 

 

Note that Ogden is now characterizing Phillip's return as a "correspondence", and a "response".  Response to what, you might ask...  Well, the answer to that is sent from Austin a few days later:

 

 

So, now we learn that Austin quickly put an "audit" of a 1040A (that Phillip never filed) in process, to which his return can now be treated as a response?!  Phillip, it appears, is psychic...  Anyway, Phillip's "response" has now moved to the "Audit Reconsideration area" at the Ogden Service Center, where they appear to be the polar opposite of psychic, saying:

 

 

 ...despite Phillip's perfectly clear report on his "wages" from Pinkerton's (displayed below).  Phillip's report had to have been actually sitting on this "tax technician's" desk at the time this letter was written, since it accompanied the referenced tax return-- just as similar reports had accompanied his 2001 and 2003 returns.  But rather than challenge Phillip's affidavit, which she has no standing to do, "technician" Hensley simply tries to deny that it exists.

 

 

Phillip has fired off a stern reply to "technician" Hensley:

 

February 18, 2005             CERTIFIED MAIL NO.   7000 1670 0007 7946 5856

  

Ms. Hensley, Tax Technician

Internal Revenue Service – Examination Branch

Ogden, UT 84201

 

Administrative Notice

 

With reference to your Special Letter, dated February 10, 2005, a copy of which is attached and made part of this correspondence, I find myself wondering how someone with a title like “Tax Technician” from an IRS Examination Branch could seemingly know so little about the IRS’s own forms, not to mention the actual law underlying the Internal Revenue Code.

 

You do not have the authority to alter my 2002 Form 1040.  If you disagree, please cite the specific IRC Section authorizing you to alter the Form 1040 filing of a non-privileged private-sector American citizen.  I expect to receive your answer within ten (10) days of the date on my USPS Return Receipt.  If I do not receive it by that time, I will know that you realize there is no such authorization to be found.

 

Your Form CG-4549 contains several errors, which had already been CORRECTED on my original filing.  My 2002 1040, to which you refer, was accompanied by Schedule D and Form 4852.  The money I received from Pinkerton’s Inc. was erroneously reported as “wages” on a 2002 W-2.  As a non-privileged private-sector worker, I received NOTHING in the way of “wages,” as defined at IRC Section 3401(a).  I am sure you are well aware that Form 4852 entitled, in pertinent part, “Substitute for Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement,” is the IRS’s own form for correcting erroneous information returns (e.g. W-2’s).

 

You could not have seriously examined my 2002 1040 and missed the fact that the “Payer Entity Data” and all other appropriate details, match exactly the information submitted on my Form 4852.  Additionally, the alleged $22,388 on your CG-4549, line 1.a. “Capital Gain or Loss” was quite adequately explained on my Schedule D.  There was no “gain” whatsoever to be reported.

 

I owe you nothing.  You owe me $1,624.82, plus any appropriate interest, for amounts that were ERRONEOUSLY deducted from my non-privileged pay.  You have had my money for quite long enough.  Immediately forward a check to me in the amount of $1,624.82, plus any and all applicable interest due.  If you are unable to do this yourself, please be so kind as to forward my file to someone with the authority to do so.  As a public servant, I expect and demand that you uphold the rule of law.

 

I request and demand any and all due process to which I am entitled or which is in any way appropriate and/or available to me under any provision or practice of common, statutory, and/or administrative law or protocol including, but not limited to, that to which your notice refers; and incorporate by reference into this request and demand all relevant information included on or in that notice, a copy of which is attached.  Be advised that it is my intention to audio-record any and all proceedings for which such an option is lawfully available to me.  I declare that I make no admissions as to my status, the legitimacy of your implicit or explicit assertions, or the fitness of any particular legal or administrative protocol by responding to your notice or by requesting and demanding the due process referenced above.  Prior to any formal or informal due process hearing, I expect and require meaningful clarification as to the nature of -- and reason for -- any alleged assessment, the process by which any and all relevant determinations reflected in and by your office were arrived at, and anything else pertinent to the matter.

 

Sincerely,

 

Phillip S. Bates

Update!!

(Austin, we have a problem...)