This video has an edited call with Rolando Garza from my article “Texas Robbery“. This is where, despite making legal determinations against my friend Marciano, Mr. Garza refuses to discuss his qualifications to do so.
This is typical behavior when dealing with a con man though. On Monday I was assisting someone with a “collection due process hearing” with the IRS. These are a joke and are not real hearings: there is no discussion of evidence or opportunity to challenge anything. I asked a few questions and only got one responsive answer, it went like this:
Marc: Is my client entitled to a fair hearing?
Marc: Can he get a fair hearing if there is a conflict of interest?
IRS: There is no conflict of interest.
Marc: That’s not an answer to my question, just yes or no, can he get a fair hearing if there’s a conflict of interest?
IRS: I’ve answered your question.
It gets worse; despite initially telling us we could challenge underlying liability, she refused any discussion on the subject. Even though it was supposed to be a hearing, she said the opportunity to challenge was only by filing a return, which my client refused to do.
So I asked, “Why would my client file a tax return, aren’t only taxpayers required to file tax returns?” Her answer? “That’s a frivolous argument.”
Welcome to legal land, where black is white and questions are arguments. Anything to avoid an investigation into the facts. Why? Because there are no facts proving anyone is a taxpayer.
I keep saying it: if it’s so easy to prove someone is a taxpayer, then why the absolute refusal to discuss the facts and qualifications to make such a determination? I’m not referring to internet tough guys and trolls who post endless ad hominem attacks; I’m talking about the refusal of the tax agents and attorneys actually attacking people.
The answer is simple: it’s all bluff backed by a gun. Underneath all that paperwork is a gun.