IRS: Specified Frivolous Position
Current time: 09-22-2014, 09:16 PM
User(s) browsing this thread:
Author: NoConsent
Last Post: NonEntity
Replies: 56
Views: 20378

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
IRS: Specified Frivolous Position
02-29-2012, 05:56 AM
Post: #31
RE: IRS: Specified Frivolous Position
Habenae,
Thank you for the posting: that's a lot to digest. I have to confess, I'm a little ovewhelmed by all that you pasted in there, and am not sure what to make of it all (other than to be discouraged).

At the bottom (or top: not sure) of two items you inserted you remarked, "Note who this applies to."

Best I can see is that all of the statutory legalese you pasted in there applies to anyone who dares question his or her status as a taxpayer, or the admissibility of testimony (i.e. 1099, W2) provided under duress, or the alleged taxability of income, etc. Is that what I'm to infer from your posting? Reading it simply pours cold water on my resolve: it looks to me like there is just no way to stand up to these people. Can I trouble you to elaborate on what I might have inferred from your post if I'd been a little more penetrating in my reading of it?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-29-2012, 06:27 AM (This post was last modified: 02-29-2012 07:18 AM by Habenae Est Dominatus.)
Post: #32
RE: IRS: Specified Frivolous Position
(02-29-2012 05:56 AM)NoConsent Wrote:  Habenae,
Thank you for the posting: that's a lot to digest. I have to confess, I'm a little ovewhelmed by all that you pasted in there, and am not sure what to make of it all (other than to be discouraged).

At the bottom (or top: not sure) of two items you inserted you remarked, "Note who this applies to."

Best I can see is that all of the statutory legalese you pasted in there applies to anyone who dares question his or her status as a taxpayer, or the admissibility of testimony (i.e. 1099, W2) provided under duress, or the alleged taxability of income, etc. Is that what I'm to infer from your posting? Reading it simply pours cold water on my resolve: it looks to me like there is just no way to stand up to these people. Can I trouble you to elaborate on what I might have inferred from your post if I'd been a little more penetrating in my reading of it?

Knowledge is supposed to be power.

Are you a "taxpayer"?
Yes, I know that is the question "they" won't answer.
So how can those laws apply if they can't provide evidence and testimony that you are a taxpayer?

Everything "they" do must be done according to law. Marc's (and your) questions circumvent arguing with them about the administrative rules by attempting to get them to pay attention to higher laws.

I read your posts with interest.

You did good verbally in conversation. I hope to be so good in dealing with these sanctimonious, ignorant, "I vas just vollowing my orders" nazi-like criminals. <wipes spittle off chin> :@

At least you got a letter. They just reached in and started taking my wife's compensation. Awaiting to see if they are even going to answer the letter we sent. I'm not ready to post it yet.

I'm still waiting for the answer to this letter: http://www.synapticsparks.info/admit_or_deny/
Don't trouble yourself reading that one. 8,000 words that won't help at this stage while you are stressed and panicking over the issue. Just click to the bottom and see what they purport is an answer to the letter.

I'm still researching for adding info to this thread. I'll peel below the line away into it's own post later.

I noticed that Marc said he had a client with a similar situation.
@ Marc: Mr. Stevens, have you been able to get traction with these fingers in the ears... uh, IRS employees at all, in any way? I could use a little hope of my own, but I'm asking Wink because NoConsent could use a little hope.

No where on the cited page do I find that asking for proof of taxpayer status has been deemed frivolous.

Quote:4.10.12.1.1 (02-23-2012)
Frivolous Arguments

1. Frivolous arguments are currently described in Notice 2008-14, 2008-1 C.B. 310 (or its successor notice), the Truth About Frivolous Arguments, and any revenue ruling issued since the publication of either of these documents. Please refer to these publications for the most current listing of frivolous arguments. Recognized frivolous arguments include but are not limited to:
See IRM at 4.10.12.1.1 http://www.irs.gov/irm/

Quote:4.10.12.1.2 (02-23-2012)
Authority and Responses to Common Frivolous Arguments

1. The judicial system and the Internal Revenue Code provide alternative ways to test the income tax statutes without violating the law. Taxpayers may contest a notice of deficiency by filing a petition with the Tax Court without paying the tax. Taxpayers may also file a refund suit in the United States District Court or the United States Court of Federal Claims after paying the tax. However, if the IRS Appeals Office provides administrative review in connection with such litigation, it will not give a taxpayer an Appeals hearing on cases involving solely the failure or refusal to comply with tax law because of moral, religious, political, constitutional, conscientious or similar grounds. See IRM 8.1.1.3.1, No Appeals Conference or Concession on Certain Arguments, and IRM 20.1.6.1.4, Appeal Rights, for additional information.

2. It is not the policy of the IRS to respond to frivolous arguments on a point by point basis. These arguments almost always reflect personal opinions and frustrations with the tax system that the IRS is unable to address. The responsibility of the IRS is to administer the federal tax law as enacted by Congress. The Service responds to technical questions about individual accounts; however, it has no administrative authority to change tax laws. The Service's responsibility is to administer the tax laws as they exist and to ensure they are uniformly applied. The Frivolous Return Program provides for initial responses to each issue or argument presented; however, it provides for no responses to repeated inquiries on the same positions that have no basis in law. The program encourages individuals to seek competent tax counsel and advises of the potential consequences of advancing frivolous arguments.
See IRM at 4.10.12.1.2 http://www.irs.gov/irm/

Quote:4.10.12.1.3 (02-23-2012)
Identification of Frivolous Documents

1. Frivolous documents often:
contain arguments about the obligation to file or pay tax on the face of the tax return or on attachments to the tax return
include altered forms or jurats containing frivolous arguments
are attempts to impede or circumvent the administrative processing of the tax return.

2. The criteria for considering a civil penalty for frivolous tax returns is found in IRC 26 section 6702. It states," A person shall pay a penalty of $5000 if -"

1. such person files what purports to be a return of a tax imposed by this title but which -
a. does not contain information on which the substantial correctness of the self-assessment may be judged, or
b. contains information that on its face indicates that the self-assessment is substantially incorrect, and

2. the conduct referred to in paragraph (1)
is based on a position which the Secretary has identified as frivolous under subsection ( c), or
reflects a desire to delay or impede the administration of Federal tax laws.

Notice 2008-14, 2008-1 CB 310, or any successor notice provides the Secretary’s list of frivolous issues.
See IRM at 4.10.12.1.3 http://www.irs.gov/irm/

IRM internal page links change often enough that deep links quickly become invalid. This is the only link of the IRM that doesn't change:
http://www.irs.gov/irm/
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-29-2012, 07:24 AM
Post: #33
RE: IRS: Specified Frivolous Position
(02-29-2012 06:27 AM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote:  Are you a "taxpayer"?
Yes, I know that is the question "they" won't answer.

NoConsent,

If I may, I'll reword Est's reply in case you are still confused. (No disrespect at all, Est, I'm just not sure your point was clear.)

Where he asks who are they referring to he's attempting to get you to see that they are talking about "a taxpayer," and all of their laws refer to this "taxpayer" person. But so far they have not defined what a taxpayer is, nor have they shown that YOU are a "taxpayer." So the issue at hand is to get them to show you, in the law, where it says what makes you a taxpayer. Until they do that, all of those laws and regulations and stuff apply to someone ELSE and so do not concern you.

It's like if you were walking down the street and a cop gave you a ticket for a not using your turn indicator. Since those laws (about using turn indicators) apply to DRIVERS, the ticket does not rightly apply to you.

Do you follow?

Forget about all of those laws. They don't apply to you. They apply to ... a TAXPAYER. And until they can prove that you are a taxpayer there is no more to discuss.

Hope that helps maybe. If you listen well to Marc's calls with the I.R.S. you will note that this is the issue he almost always focuses on.

- NonE

- NonE .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-29-2012, 07:34 AM (This post was last modified: 02-29-2012 07:36 AM by Habenae Est Dominatus.)
Post: #34
RE: IRS: Specified Frivolous Position
(02-29-2012 07:24 AM)NonEntity Wrote:  No disrespect at all, Est,

NonE taken. Big Grin

(02-29-2012 07:24 AM)NonEntity Wrote:  I'm just not sure your point was clear.

Thanks for expounding the point.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-29-2012, 08:21 AM
Post: #35
RE: IRS: Specified Frivolous Position
NonConsent,
Thanks again for posting the detailed exchange. I consider myself honored to know you in this regard. As it's oft expressed today, "you done good". But thanks the most for both your desire and your actual willingness to not be a pet before tyranny, choosing to not roll over and not sit up and beg on command. Though there's not a photo likely to be etched into many's memories, I see you there, standing in front of the tank in your own Tiananmen Square. (there quite literally are "tanks" now amongst "SWAT Teams" etal after all, just waiting on The Command to roll... over... see Waco)

It's difficult, in the sense of heart-wrenching, to tell whether pointing it out helps or not, but in the most practical if not literal sense, what you are dealing with is war. I sense you are indeed hearing the drums of war. Yours of course are not from tightly stretched skins being struck, but rather from vibrations in ear pieces sent from mouth pieces being struck.
Most or at least many of us here likely(or should) have too. One of the difficult things to accept about having war being the mindset of some (whether the "front lines" of it are aware of it or not e.g. IRS Agents) is the sense of helplessness and the inevitability of it. Sadly, all too typically there's just nothing one can do to halt those with such a Hell-bent mindset. One thing one can choose tho, is to not participate in perpetuating the myth that is isn't war. War of course in it's most literal sense breaks down to one on one, "hand to hand" combat. It's when one is of the state of mind that their values are to be enforced upon another and a willingness to escalate the level of violence as needed. One of course only encounters that if they refuse the prior threat levels; the supposed "diplomacy" aka verbal assault. Which is what the likes of these IRS Agents are. They are the "Ambassadors", the Angelos (per ancient Greek) of The Gospel (the Good News!). We're from The Government and We're here to help you! [/sarcasm]

My point, or at least my desire, is not to discourage you further or to pour cold water on you --to "waterboard" you mentally. Rather it is my hope that at least in clearly realizing the reality, you can be less influenced i.e. lulled by the illusion all about you that this is not war. It is, factually, and it's likely or at least partially why you're experiencing the sense of devastation and impending doom you are. It is quite real. I know that identical sensing personally and close to "home" (i no longer have one/the American Dream). I've been scampering all about the proverbial battlefield trying to dodge mental bullets, mental grenades, and mental rockets for nigh a decade now. But I'm no longer under the illusion that it's not war. Some refer to it as "choosing one's battles", because as they say, you can't fight 'em all. Many of us have been living with this reality and awareness for years now. I'd argue there's an equivalent of Post Traumatic Stress that comes to play here as well. It definitely tends to wear on you; and in a couple of ways. It's one thing to have lived in the literal awareness that what is happening all about you is indeed, warfare. It's a whole nuther to be awakened suddenly to the fact that what you thought was "Defense" has all been an illusion --all your life. We can choose to breathe and calculate, calmly in this moment. Panic, as comforting and enticing as it seems, really won't aide us.

These IRS Agents are more often than not, the contemporary versions of Tokyo Roses. It's tough listening to them time and again. So tough, sadly, presently most won't. They choose to spin the dial to the nearest mental distraction. Just as with Pearl Harbor, The Machine steadily approaches regardless.
May you find the resolve to assess your position, determine yourself relative to position, accurately account for the costs, and find the courage to accept reality and no longer be tempted by what "might have been" ("happily ever after" is possible, as it is a choice, tho it too, like the word war, may require some tough mental adjusting). Statists, in the inherent warring state of mind, simply don't allow Their enemy combatants the luxury of coexisting peacefully. And the first phase of seeking to do away with peace comes via words. Words tend to produce emotion and emotion influences, if not determines (re)action.

I hate it that you find yourself in these trenches. It is so discouraging to suddenly be awakened to the sound of war about us. I recall the scene in the movie The Patriot (the Mel Gibson one, not the Seagal one) because it visually brought "home" the eventual, if not inevitable nature of war, and one side being set on it. Gibson's character was literally forced to accept the war brought to him. In his front yard, literally. He chose to resist. As apparently (according to the movie) did his children. It cost him. It's costing u.s. May you find here on the forum some threads of a blanket to grasp that comforts you in the present cold.
There are those here who are aware of your battle and genuinely cherish that you're not rolling over. Most here, I feel, will also understand if you feel you have to duck and run, or duck and hide, and live to fight another day in another battle. I often re-examine --or more accurately, toss and turn over the question of why am I not literally a POW. There are no easy choices in the face of tyranny's advancements. As Rosa Parks found, no one knows either when or if one person's stand (upon the shoulders of many unacknowledged around her) will break the proverbial camel's back. Life is simply, tho not easy, like that. Fairy tales, not so much. But war is no fairy tale. Rather than Grimm's ours is grim. And grimacing. And we have no choice about that and might was well get on with accepting it.

At least presently, the "hand to hand" combat is still in the initial phases of war called the negotiations-- unless your battle line "drawn in the sand" is Illegal plants called drugs, then the most literal war is on (see The War On Drugs as necessary). Then the war is both declared ("Official") and in plain sight. In this plane, called taxation, Tokyo Rose's influence has quite lulled enough people into a "you can't shouldn't fight City Hall" state of mind. One can only sit up and beg, or rollover in that State of mind. The IRS Agents on the front line are tho, awakening many to the fact that indeed, it is a State, a state of war. A state of personal destruction. You are one of the "lucky" ones They have awakened. Dishearteningly, what's left inevitable is to count the costs, and choose one's battles, and battle lines, and battle strategies; one's responses. It is my hope that you, as myself and others are having to do, will choose to persist in the resistance; to persist in the responses. But ultimately, we each can only individually determine the value of not rolling over, of not being a lap dog. Presently the worst cost is more likely to be paid by the children of our generation. Some of course like that just fine. You honor me and my children and my children's children in your willingness to face your tank; to stand against the machine. Whether it stops, pauses, or moves forward is for you, and for each us, then one small step... then another... I hope you can embrace reality and find comfort regardless of the steps you choose. Peace~

--eye2i2hear

"Forum winners are those who understand the power of triggered emotions and that the sole purpose of an argument is to stray as far as humanly possible from issues and to stay laser focused on belittling your rival with the choicest of pejoratives." ~Srini Chandra
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-29-2012, 09:42 AM (This post was last modified: 02-29-2012 01:52 PM by Habenae Est Dominatus.)
Post: #36
RE: IRS: Specified Frivolous Position
I've discussed this with my wife. She says go ahead and post it.


TO:
FROM:
ACS SUPPORT - STOP 5050
Wife
PO BOX 219236
P.O. Box
KANSAS CITY, MO 64121-9236
Attn: Operations Manager, ACS February 2, 2012

Whose unreadable signature is:
[attachment=39]

Certified Mail: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
Certified Mail: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
Certified Mail: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx



Dear Operations Manager X,

IRS Policy Statement 6-12, found at IRM 1.2.21.1.3 (Approved 03-14-1991) states:

1. Timeliness and Quality of Taxpayer Correspondence
2. The Service will issue quality responses to all taxpayer correspondence.
3. Taxpayer correspondence is defined as all written communication from a taxpayer or his/her representative, excluding tax returns, whether solicited or unsolicited. This includes taxpayer requests for information, as well as that which may accompany a tax return; responses to IRS requests for information; and annotated notice responses.
4. A quality response is timely, accurate, professional in tone, responsive to taxpayer needs (i.e., resolves all issues without further contact).


This clearly indicates to me that IF I am a “Taxpayer”, then you are required to answer this letter with a “quality response”. Your response should be timely, accurate, and resolve my issue without further contact.

I have received a notice from Automatic Data Processing, Garnishment Services, that you have sent them a form 668-W ( c ) intending to levy my Xxxxxxx compensation for labor. My name is not [previous married name] and my address is not [the wrong address listed].

I notice that the form 668-W ( c ) does not have section 6331(d) printed in the excerpts from the Internal Revenue Code. Internal Revenue Code section 6331(d) states:

(d) Requirement of notice before levy
(1) In general
Levy may be made under subsection (a) upon the salary or wages or other property of any person with respect to any unpaid tax only after the Secretary has notified such person in writing of his intention to make such levy.

(2) 30-day requirement
The notice required under paragraph (1) shall be—
(A) given in person,
(B) left at the dwelling or usual place of business of such person, or
© sent by certified or registered mail to such persons's last known address,
no less than 30 days before the day of the levy.

Please send me a copy of the evidence that you did indeed provide me with the required written notice, 30 days before the January 16, 2012 date that you signed form 668-W ( c ). If you can not send me proof of this 30-day notice, then I must insist that you CEASE AND DESIST this attempt to violate my due process rights and subsequently I must insist that you notify ADP / Xxxxxxx to not attempt to illegally convert my property until a proper due process levy has been established.

IF I am a “taxpayer” I am hereby notifying you that I intend to record any due process hearing per section 7521(a)(1).

Publication 1494 (2011) indicates that $xxx.xx is exempt from levy for a couple filing jointly. Please verify that IF I am a “taxpayer” this would be the correct amount exempt from levy (two exemptions; one for my spouse and one for myself.)

I notice that the form 668-W ( c ) does not have section 6331(a) printed in the excerpts from the Internal Revenue Code. Internal Revenue Code section 6331(a) states in part:

(a) Authority of Secretary

If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax. 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.


Please send me a copy of the evidence that a notice and demand for the alleged tax liability was indeed sent. Please insure that this evidence shows that the notice and demand was signed under penalties of perjury pursuant to section 6065 of the Internal Revenue Code by the IRS agent, officer, or employee that issued it.

The above cited statute 6331(a) tells me that in order for the Secretary or his delegate(s) to have authority to levy my compensation for labor, I must be a person liable to pay this tax. Therefore I must question, “How did I became a person liable to pay this tax?”

The Supreme Court has stated:

Judge Gray, dissenting, said: 'Keeping in mind the well-settled rule that the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid, […]
SPRECKELS SUGAR REFINING CO. v. MCCLAIN, 192 U.S. 397 (1904)

My understanding after reading that passage is that I am exempt from taxation unless that taxation is imposed by clear and unequivocal language. I am told that this is a “well-settled rule”.

In another case the Supreme Court stated:

In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen.
GOULD v. GOULD, 245 U.S. 151 (1917)

My understanding of that passage is that: I am to pay attention to “the clear import of the language used”; That the provisions of the statutes levying taxes do not operate by implying objects addressed; and that such statutes do not “embrace matters not specifically pointed out.

In a third case the Supreme Court stated:

In view of other settled rules of statutory construction, which teach that a law is presumed, in the absence of clear expression to the contrary, to operate prospectively; that, if doubt exists as to the construction of a taxing statute, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer, […]
HASSETT v. WELCH, 303 U.S. 303 (1938)

My understanding after reading those three passages is that if there is a doubt regarding a taxing statute, it should be resolved in my favor, IF I am a “taxpayer”. And if there is doubt regarding a taxing statute that appears to make me into a “taxpayer”, then such a taxing statute can not make me into a “taxpayer”. In all three cases, this rule of construction is settled and established.

All three of these Supreme Court cites appear to embody the “void-for-vagueness doctrine” which is set out in the Supreme Court case of CONNALLY v. GENERAL CONST. CO., 269 U.S. 385 (1926) and the appropriate excerpts are supplied as a courtesy in the end notes. #1

As I stated, I must question, “How did I become liable to pay the income tax?”

If the tax in question was in regard to the distilled spirits tax, I could find (and have found) my own answer. Internal Revenue Code section 5001(a)(1) states in part:

There is hereby imposed on all distilled spirits produced in or imported into the United States a tax at the rate of $13.50 on each proof gallon and a proportionate tax at the like rate on all fractional parts of a proof gallon.

And Internal Revenue Code section 5005(a) states:

The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon by section 5001(a)(1).

This tax “is imposed by clear and unequivocal language” as the Supreme Court requires. The answer to my question is that I would make myself liable to pay this tax by distilling or importing distilled spirits. Thus, “How did I become liable to pay this tax?” is easily answered.

However, the tax in question is the income tax. How did I become liable to pay the income tax?

There is imposed in section 1, five tax rates on five classes of taxable income. The Supreme Court has told me “In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out.” Section 1 does not impose a liability upon any person to pay the tax imposed in section 1.

Section 5005 makes certain persons liable to pay the tax imposed in section 5001 by listing the persons made liable to pay and citing the statute imposing the tax such persons are being made liable to pay.

I have done a due diligence search of the Internal Revenue Code to find who is made liable to pay the taxes imposed in section 1. I could only find the following eight classes of person made liable for the tax imposed by the “clear import of the language used”. As a courtesy, the appropriate text is shown in the end notes.

Section 2 - nonresident aliens.#2
Section 641 - fiduciaries.#3
Section 701 - partners.#4
Section 876 - aliens resident in Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, or the Northern Mariana Islands.#5
Section 877 - expatriate nonresident aliens.#6
Section 871 - nonresident aliens.#7
Section 1461 - Chapter 3 withholding agents.#8
Section 1473 - Chapter 4 withholding agents.#9

I have been unable to find the statute where the liability to pay the section 1 tax “is imposed by clear and unequivocal language” upon myself as the Supreme Court requires.

Please cite the statute where the liability to pay the section 1 tax “is imposed by clear and unequivocal language” as the Supreme Court requires.

If such a statute can not be found, then I can not be liable to pay such an alleged tax and from there it follows, the Secretary or his delegate(s) can not have any authority to levy my compensation for labor.

In the preceding pages, I have emphasized the qualification “IF I am a taxpayer”. If I am not a “taxpayer”, then I am a “nontaxpayer”. This is a critical distinction.

In the Long v. Rasmussen case, the court addresses this critical distinction:

The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws.
Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922)

This distinction as again addressed in another case, citing the previous case:

They [the revenue laws] relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law.
Economy Plumbing & Heating v. U.S., 470 F2d. 585 (1972)

IF I am not a “taxpayer” then I am neither the subject nor the object of the revenue laws.

Section 7701(a)(14) states:

The term "taxpayer" means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.

In order to be “subject to” any internal revenue tax, I must be a person made “liable to pay” such a tax. The imposition of the liability to pay this tax must be “imposed by clear and unequivocal language” as the Supreme Court requires.

If there is no such statute where the liability to pay the section 1 tax “is imposed by clear and unequivocal language” upon myself as the Supreme Court requires, I expect you and your agency to acknowledge the missing statute.

Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. . . We cannot condone this shocking behavior by the IRS. Our revenue system is based on the good faith of the taxpayer and the taxpayers should be able to expect the same from the government in its enforcement and collection activities."
U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299.
See also U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032; Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932.


Please provide the statute that imposes a liability upon myself, using the “clear and unequivocal language” required by the Supreme Court. Once you have located this statute, please present an affidavit, signed under penalties of perjury providing evidence that I am a “taxpayer” subject to the subtitle A internal revenue tax.

Until this is done, my husband and I stand on our rights as “nontaxpayers” to not pay a tax we are not liable for.

Signed,



Wife



AFFIDAVIT OF “NONTAXPAYER” STATUS


1. I (with my husband’s assistance) have searched the Internal Revenue Code for the statute or section wherein I am made liable to pay the tax imposed in section 1.
2. I have been unable to find such a statute or section that makes me liable to pay the section 1 tax using the “clear and unequivocal language” required by the settled rules of the Supreme Court.
3. Failing to find such a statute or section that makes me liable to pay the section 1 tax, I have been forced to conclude that I am a nontaxpayer.
4. The court in Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922) has stated: “The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws.
5. This distinction between a taxpayer and a nontaxpayer was reaffirmed in the Economy Plumbing & Heating v. U.S., 470 F2d. 585 (1972) where it was stated: “They [the revenue laws] relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law.
6. As a “nontaxpayer” I am outside the scope of the revenue laws, therefore the Secretary of Treasury or his delegate(s) have no authority in regard to myself.
7. All W-4 forms I have signed since 2002 have been signed under duress. If I didn’t sign such forms I would not have been hired.

I, spouse, do hereby certify under penalties of perjury that the forgoing facts are true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge.





x______________________________________ Notary Seal
Spouse


February _______, 2012

Commission expires:
_________________


#1 That the terms of a penal statute creating a new offense must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties is a well- recognized requirement, consonant alike with ordinary notions of fair play and the settled rules of law; and a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law.

... The dividing line between what is lawful and unlawful cannot be left to conjecture. The citizen cannot be held to answer charges based upon penal statutes whose mandates are so uncertain that they will reasonably admit of different constructions. A criminal statute cannot rest upon an uncertain foundation. The crime, and the elements constituting it, must be so clearly expressed that the ordinary person can intelligently choose, in advance, what course it is lawful for him to pursue. Penal statutes prohibiting the doing of certain things, and providing a punishment for their violation, should not admit of such a double meaning that the citizen may act upon the one conception of its requirements and the courts upon another.'
CONNALLY v. GENERAL CONST. CO., 269 U.S. 385 (1926)

#2 Sec. 2. Definitions and special rules
(d) Nonresident aliens
In the case of a nonresident alien individual, the taxes imposed by sections 1 and 55 shall apply only as provided by section 871 or 877.

#3 Sec. 641. Imposition of tax
(a) Application of tax
The tax imposed by section 1(e) shall apply to the taxable income of estates or of any kind of property held in trust, including -
[...]
(b) Computation and payment
The taxable income of an estate or trust shall be computed in the same manner as in the case of an individual, except as otherwise provided in this part. The tax shall be computed on such taxable income and shall be paid by the fiduciary. For purposes of this subsection, a foreign trust or foreign estate shall be treated as a nonresident alien individual who is not present in the United States at any time.

#4 Sec. 701. Partners, not partnership, subject to tax
A partnership as such shall not be subject to the income tax imposed by this chapter. Persons carrying on business as partners shall be liable for income tax only in their separate or individual capacities.

#5 Sec. 876. Alien residents of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, or the Northern Mariana Islands
(a) General rule
This subpart shall not apply to any alien individual who is a bona fide resident of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, or the Northern Mariana Islands during the entire taxable year and such alien shall be subject to the tax imposed by section 1.

#6 Sec. 871. Tax on nonresident alien individuals
(b) Income connected with United States business - graduated rate of tax
(1) Imposition of tax
A nonresident alien individual engaged in trade or business within the United States during the taxable year shall be taxable as provided in section 1 or 55 on his taxable income which is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States.

#7 Sec. 877. Expatriation to avoid tax
(a) Treatment of expatriates
(1) In general
Every nonresident alien individual to whom this section applies and who, within the 10-year period immediately preceding the close of the taxable year, lost United States citizenship shall be taxable for such taxable year in the manner provided in subsection (b) if [...]
(b) Alternative tax
A nonresident alien individual described in subsection (a) shall be taxable for the taxable year as provided in section 1 or 55, except that - [...]

#8 Sec. 1461. Liability for withheld tax
Every person required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter is hereby made liable for such tax and is hereby indemnified against the claims and demands of any person for the amount of any payments made in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.

#9 Sec. 1474. Special rules
(a) Liability for withheld tax
Every person required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter is hereby made liable for such tax and is hereby indemnified against the claims and demands of any person for the amount of any payments made in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-29-2012, 10:24 AM (This post was last modified: 02-29-2012 10:26 AM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #37
RE: IRS: Specified Frivolous Position
'Est, was there a "W-4/W-2", "1099", (filing by an "Employer") etc involved here? Just curious~ and apologies if you covered that in the letter and I read over it (I did catch the "duress" aspect address in the Affidavit section).
(and thanks to both you and Mrs Est both for sharing and doing this!)

In your experience, would you say it is most typically an Employer Form Filing that the IRobotService Agents see as Proof? And in Their indoctrination State (of mind)* simply can't think otherwise? *[I'd say, They are ignorant --but you might have to see my post on that in order to consider agreeing] Cool

If I might ask too, what was your objective in writing and sending this? Like, do you know that others having done something specifically similar had success with the IRS (backing off)? Or perhaps it's part venting (with maybe some proof-ing mixed in)? Or maybe some hope you'll awaken the Agent(s) reading it (see proof-ing)? etc?
Just curious; NOYFB is considered a quite honorable reply!

"Forum winners are those who understand the power of triggered emotions and that the sole purpose of an argument is to stray as far as humanly possible from issues and to stay laser focused on belittling your rival with the choicest of pejoratives." ~Srini Chandra
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-29-2012, 10:31 AM (This post was last modified: 02-29-2012 10:36 AM by Habenae Est Dominatus.)
Post: #38
RE: IRS: Specified Frivolous Position
(02-29-2012 10:24 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  'Est, was there a "W-4/W-2", "1099", (filing by an "Employer") etc involved here? Just curious~ and apologies if you covered that in the letter and I read over it (I did catch the "duress" aspect address in the Affidavit section).
(and thanks to both you and Mrs Est both for sharing and doing this!)
Yes. Thus item 7.
(02-29-2012 10:24 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  In your experience, would you say it is most typically an Employer Form Filing that the IRobotService Agents see as Proof? And in Their indoctrination State (of mind)* simply can't think otherwise?
The only experience I have is the "we need 45 days" letter, twice sent, with an annual computer dunning letter with amounts that go up and down almost at random.
(02-29-2012 10:24 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  *[I'd say, Their ignorant --but you might have to see my post on that in order to consider agreeing] Cool
I scanned that. Look up ignoramus. Wink
(02-29-2012 10:24 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  If I might ask too, what was your objective in writing and sending this? Like, do you know that others having done something specifically similar had success with the IRS (backing off)? Or perhaps it's part venting (with maybe some proof-ing mixed in)? Or maybe some hope you'll awaken the Agent(s) reading it (see proof-ing)? etc?
Just curious; NOYFB is considered a quite honorable reply!
To show the IRS drones the law that they are not allowed to read.
How do you think a letter such as that one would play to a jury in a willfulness trial?

I'm Free - I have government permission to say so..
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-29-2012, 12:13 PM (This post was last modified: 02-29-2012 02:14 PM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #39
RE: IRS: Specified Frivolous Position
(02-29-2012 10:31 AM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote:  The only experience I have is the "we need 45 days" letter, twice sent, with an annual computer dunning letter with amounts that go up and down almost at random.

ic (and which is both a good and a not so good thing/paradox --mostly for the rest of us, of course) Wink
thanx
Quote:I scanned that. Look up ignoramus. Wink

eye musta got something crossed up; the definitions given were simply:
1.) NonEntity (see also, L. stinkus erectus)
2.) [colloq] a dumb-ass


oh, no wait! blasted dyslexia... I looked up ignoranus.
Nevermind, Igor~
Cool
Quote:
(02-29-2012 10:24 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  If I might ask too, what was your objective in writing and sending this?
To show the IRS drones the law that they are not allowed to read.
How do you think a letter such as that one would play to a jury in a willfulness trial?

Yeah, I like that intent, for sure. I'd missed the part about most of the ones we'll encounter never actually having read the actual Code. I was thinking more along the lines of reminding or refreshing their memory, when the reality is more likely they're just doing as told and being told simply "It's the Law".
As far as a Trial jury, wow, as Larken (but see also tho, Lloyd Long) experienced, it seems to just depend on the 12 individuals one gets. It seems the longer the rabbit holes are allowed to be dug, the harder it becomes to get one individual to actually reason logically aka think outside of The Box --that's connected to a cage otherwise. (part of that being of course, the addiction to Appeal To Authority, only inflated by the likes of more and more lines of Code written in code aka con+fusing legaleze)

--eyeGore2i

"Forum winners are those who understand the power of triggered emotions and that the sole purpose of an argument is to stray as far as humanly possible from issues and to stay laser focused on belittling your rival with the choicest of pejoratives." ~Srini Chandra
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-29-2012, 01:40 PM
Post: #40
RE: IRS: Specified Frivolous Position
(02-29-2012 10:31 AM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote:  How do you think a letter such as that one would play to a jury in a willfulness trial?

You appear to be ingnoranus Big GrinToungeBig Grin about Larken Rose's trial. In that trial he was completely prohibited from putting on a defense. And the prosecutor and or judge effectively stated that he was innocent, and the ^$#*^ stoooopid ass jury cretins sent him to prison for a year anyway, just because he wouldn't bend over as far as they would, apparently.

The law has F all todo with any of this. It's pure power and intimidation.

Dem's my thoughts, no offense intended regarding your exercise (futile) of brain cells and typing digits and such.

It is for all these reasons that Marc is so effective. He uses their egos to get them to give him the rope he needs to hang themselves.

- NonE Undecided

- NonE .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-29-2012, 01:49 PM
Post: #41
RE: IRS: Specified Frivolous Position
(02-29-2012 01:40 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  
(02-29-2012 10:31 AM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote:  How do you think a letter such as that one would play to a jury in a willfulness trial?

You appear to be ingnoranus Big GrinToungeBig Grin about Larken Rose's trial. In that trial he was completely prohibited from putting on a defense. And the prosecutor and or judge effectively stated that he was innocent, and the ^$#*^ stoooopid ass jury cretins sent him to prison for a year anyway, just because he wouldn't bend over as far as they would, apparently.

The law has F all todo with any of this. It's pure power and intimidation.

Dem's my thoughts, no offense intended regarding your exercise (futile) of brain cells and typing digits and such.

It is for all these reasons that Marc is so effective. He uses their egos to get them to give him the rope he needs to hang themselves.

- NonE Undecided
Correct. Yet the attempt must be made.

I'm Free - I have government permission to say so..
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-29-2012, 02:05 PM
Post: #42
RE: IRS: Specified Frivolous Position
(02-29-2012 01:49 PM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote:  Correct. Yet the attempt must be made.

Uh. hmmm. mumble, mumble, Einstein*, mumble, shakes head, mumble, turns - still shaking head, walks slowly into the sunset... faint mumbles are heard disappearing into the distance and mixing with the distant howls of the coyotes. A dim sliver of a moon illuminates the desert floor, but not enough to reveal the cacti clearly. The silence fills with, not peace, but... well it's not yet known...




Einstein Wrote:Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


- NonRearAperture Angel Big Grin

- NonE .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-29-2012, 02:23 PM
Post: #43
RE: IRS: Specified Frivolous Position
(02-29-2012 02:05 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  
Einstein Wrote:Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
I'm not expecting a different result. I'm expecting the IRS to stonewall and lie like they always do. The purpose of the letter is to lay out what the law they are ignoring, actually says.

http://web.archive.org/web/2002021200424...cript.html In case anyone is interested.

I'm Free - I have government permission to say so..
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-29-2012, 02:26 PM (This post was last modified: 02-29-2012 02:28 PM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #44
RE: IRS: Specified Frivolous Position
(02-29-2012 02:05 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  
(02-29-2012 01:49 PM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote:  Correct. Yet the attempt must be made.
Uh. hmmm. mumble, mumble, Einstein*, ... [yada yada]... but... well it's not yet known...
Einstein Wrote:Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


- NonRearAperture Angel Big Grin

[NonJeopardy answer]: Who is Joe Bannister?
for 1,000 NonAlec...??

(or is Joe B one of those conspiracy theory 9/11 therminitic moonbeam false flag plants??)[/quote]


Cool Tounge

--eye2i2nowhear

"Forum winners are those who understand the power of triggered emotions and that the sole purpose of an argument is to stray as far as humanly possible from issues and to stay laser focused on belittling your rival with the choicest of pejoratives." ~Srini Chandra
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-29-2012, 02:28 PM
Post: #45
RE: IRS: Specified Frivolous Position
(02-29-2012 02:23 PM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote:  
(02-29-2012 02:05 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  
Einstein Wrote:Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
I'm not expecting a different result. I'm expecting the IRS to stonewall and lie like they always do. The purpose of the letter is to lay out what the law they are ignoring, actually says.

http://web.archive.org/web/2002021200424...cript.html In case anyone is interested.



I didn't wrote that. EINSTEIN wrote that. Can't you read? Tounge Big Grin

OUCH (stumbles on cactus and falls to the ground, covered with spines sticking out at every which angle) SCREAMS in pain.

- NonElucidacious

- NonE .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: