YOU'D BE IN REAL TROUBLE (if I didn't have this splitting headache...) Please go away and leave me alone.
'Cracking the Code-...' warrior Carl Stewart has shared with us a pleasing victory for the rule of law which he recently won by simply standing up to the IRS with courage and confidence. This little dust-up and its outcome are particularly worthy of note because in the course of its surrender, his adversary makes an admission of considerable significance. Here is how Carl brought the matter to my attention:
You're gonna love this. The IRS claims that I owe them money from several years, beginning with 1992. With the knowledge that I gained from Cracking the Code, I sent a letter asking them for any and all documentation and prima facie evidence upon which they base their claim, and I was prepared to refute and rebut each and every piece of "evidence" that they would present. Their response is very interesting, not to mention liberating. Feel free to post on your web site.
Here is Carl's request:
...and here is the IRS response:
I can't say whether or not there is any truth to the assertion made by Ms. Franklin, but it is very interesting nonetheless. For instance, if what she says is true, then anybody being harassed over alleged liabilities associated with any year prior to 1994 just got some truly important news! Not only does Ms. Franklin's assertion mean that all such allegations lack even a pretext of legitimacy, but also that the 'service'-- or certain agents-- are thus laid bare to a richly-deserved punishment. After all, to pursue a citizen under such circumstances is a very serious felony:
26 USC 7214:
a) Unlawful acts of revenue officers or agents
Any officer or employee of the United States acting in connection with any revenue law of the United States—
(1) who is guilty of any extortion or willful oppression under color of law; or
(2) who knowingly demands other or greater sums than are authorized by law, or receives any fee, compensation, or reward, except as by law prescribed, for the performance of any duty; or
shall be dismissed from office or discharged from employment and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
It seems pretty cut-and-dried that if the 'service' hasn't any evidence upon which to act, as declared by Ms. Franklin, then to be dunning Carl or anyone else similarly situated amounts to "extortion or willful oppression under color of law" and "knowingly demand[ing] other or greater sums than are authorized by law".
However, I have my doubts as to Ms. Franklin's honesty here. For one thing, it seems highly unlikely that she would blithely admit such a thing and invite the penalty spelled out above. For another, her communiqué is at least somewhat self-contradictory. If the 'service' has no "income" documentation, how did it arrive at the "balance of $1,191.85" which Carl was alleged to have owed? Did they just make up a number? If not, are we to believe that an "income document" WAS in the hands of the 'service' at one time; an allegation of liability was generated accordingly; and then the all-important "income document" was disposed of while the 'case' remained open? None of this is credible.
I also find it worthy of note that "Ms. Franklin" declines to sign this letter, while at the same time making what might be an effort to appear to have done so. Whatever "Ms. Franklin's" real name is, it doesn't start with "Ms.", but that's all that is offered where a first name belongs on the signature line of her missive. I may just have an overly suspicious mind, but I can't think of any reason for a handwritten rendering of "Ms. Franklin" in that spot other than to imbue what is actually an unsigned document with a misleading appearance of veracity. But like I said, maybe it's just me...
So, what might really be going on here? Well, perhaps the simple truth is that the 'service' just doesn't want to fight the fight that Carl is bringing. Maybe "Ms. Franklin" and her cohorts recognize that they've got a losing-- and perhaps even personally dangerous-- hand to play, and just want to fold, but find themselves caught in a tangled web of deceit offering no alternative but the "baffle them with b______t" technique in which they are so very well practiced. Maybe Ms. Franklin and her friends are just hoping that by getting all kissy-faced, and rescinding the "debt", they can make the headache that Carl has become just go away and leave them alone.
Either way, I don't think Carl needs to worry about 1992 anymore.
NOTE: Some will imagine that the 'service's' response has something to do with the 10 statute of limitations on IRS collections. This is not the case. "Income" tax collections provisions allow for a three year delay from the time a real return is filed before that 10 year period begins running, if such a return IS ever filed. If such a return is NOT filed, there is no limit as to how long the start of that period can be delayed. See 26 USC 6501(c)(3):
(3) No return
In the case of failure to file a return, the tax may be assessed, or a proceeding in court for the collection of such tax may be begun without assessment, at any time.
Similarly, when what is "filed" is an SFR, as in this case, no statutory clock begins to run. See 26 USC 6501(b)(3):
(3) Return executed by Secretary
Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2) of section 6020 (b), the execution of a return by the Secretary pursuant to the authority conferred by such section shall not start the running of the period of limitations on assessment and collection.
Granted, a meaningful (legal) SFR was almost certainly NOT filed in this case (I don't know anything about Carl's earnings, but I take him at his word), but the IRS says that one was. Thus, the IRS contention that it routinely disposes of related information docs 10 years after the relevant year (or the year a return was theoretically due), and did so in this case, is ridiculous.
An "Income" Tax Subject Site Map
Join the Lost Horizons Forum