The purpose of this board is to track the status of activity, cases, and ultimately the incarceration or fines against TP promoters and certain high-profile TPs.
asmith wrote:Thanks. Although I was aware that the "prejudice" only applied to this case, I did not know what you brought out concerning the Appeals.
I can see where the PRA would not be a valid defense except for matters relating to the "penalties" for failure to file. In the revised Act (1998 I believe), it plainly states that a person cannot be penalized for failure to provide information on an information request form that does not carry a "valid" control number and which has not been "properly" certified, etc.
The million dollar question, that to me has not been fairly ruled on, is whether or not the OMB number, currently being used, is valid and properly secured. Furthermore, is it legal to use the same control number for more than one form? The Act says no, but the Courts appear to be totally ignoring that. They have also totally ignored that the application for a OMB number (if the information is required by the citizen) has to state the statute imposing the requirement. All of the discussions I have read say that the application has never contained the statute. Have you ever bothered to look at the OMB web site to review the applications, or are you just operating on Internet rumor? Assuming that is the case (and I have never seen it disputed), it seems pretty clear that the OMB number has never been "properly" certified by the OMB. The OMB does not have the authority to waive Congressionally imposed requirements.
Citation, please.
Also, take a few minutes to do some legitimate research. The web sites challenging the OMB number all have an axe to grind.
asmith wrote:I was just having a discussion, not trying a case. I'll refrain from further postings. Thanks, anyway.
By the way, I said, "assuming they are correct". Therefore, I was leaving it open for a response to the contrary.
Horse hockey.
You weren't discussing, you were trolling, and as soon as someone challenged your pre-conceived conclusions, you run away with your tail between your legs.
Either post something to substantiate your statements, or go crawl back under your rock.
Please don't go. We're used to people coming in and quoting stuff from the standard "I don't want to pay" rhetoric and it's sometimes hard to filter those folks from the ones who have legitimate questions.
When chosen for jury duty, tell the judge "fortune cookie says guilty" - A fortune cookie
1. whether or not the OMB number, currently being used, is valid and properly secured;
2. whether it is legal to use the same control number for more than one form;
3. whether the application for a OMB number (if the information is required by the citizen) has to state the statute imposing the requirement;
4. whether the OMB number has been properly certified by the OMB.
From the standpoint of a duty to file a Federal income tax return, and a duty to pay a Federal income tax, all of the above questions are legally irrelevant. Here's why.
Under the statutes, the regs, and the case law interpreting those statutes and regs, the presence or absence of an OMB control number - valid or invalid - on a tax form does not negate a statutory duty to pay a Federal income tax or, indeed, to file a Federal income tax on that form. What the tax protesters seem to be missing is that there is a difference between an information request from a government agency for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and a duty imposed by the Congress itself to timely file an income tax return or to timely pay an income tax under the Internal Revenue Code (a statute). Whether a particular tax form (such as Form 1040) does or does not constitute an information request by an agency (such as the IRS, for example) for some purpose under the PRA, and whether or not the form is required to have an OMB control number for purposes of the PRA, the whole "OMB control number thing" does not change the fact that the taxpayer is still facing the statutory requirements of the Internal Revenue Code imposed by Congress itself, beyond a mere information request from the administrative agency that is using the form: see 26 USC sec. 6011; 26 USC sec. 6012; 26 USC sec. 6151; 26 USC sec. 6651; and 26 USC sec. 7203. When you fill out a Form 1040, you may or may not be responding to a PRA information request from a government agency (the IRS). The point is that it doesn't matter. The point is that even if you are responding to an information request from the IRS for purposes of the PRA, you are also doing something else as well -- you are complying with a legal obligation imposed by the Congress itself -- by an actual statute.
I'm new to this forum, so I haven't read all the posts. If you need citations to court decisions, I'll list a few below. Suffice to say that despite numerous attempts by tax protesters, no Federal court has ever ruled that any obligation to file returns or pay taxes can be negated by the presence or absence of an OMB control number, valid or otherwise on the form that you use to comply. Indeed, all the case law goes against the tax protesters.
The regulations for the OMB control number under the Paperwork Reduction Act itself specifically mention that the PRA does not negate statutory tax obligations, providing (in part):
"§ 1320.6 Public protection.
"(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that is subject to the requirements of this part if:
"(1) The collection of information does not display, in accordance with §1320.3(f) and §1320.5(b)(1), a currently valid OMB control number assigned by the Director in accordance with the Act [ . . . ]
"(e) The protection provided by paragraph (a) of this section does not preclude the imposition of a penalty on a person for failing to comply with a collection of information that is imposed on the person by statute—e.g., 26 U.S.C. §6011(a) (statutory requirement for person to file a tax return) [ . . . . ] 5 C.F.R. sec. 1320.6."
Additionally the Paperwork Reduction Act itself states (in part): "[ . . . ] this subchapter shall not apply to the collection of information [ . . . ] during the conduct of [ . . . ] a civil action to which the United States or any official or agency thereof is a party [ . . . ] or [ . . . ] an administrative action or investigation involving an agency against specific individuals or entities." 44 U.S.C. sec. 3518(c). Depending on the facts and circumstances, a collection of tax by the IRS is an "administrative action" against "specific individuals or entities" (trust me on that).
For some case law, see McDougall v. Commissioner, 64 T.C.M. (CCH) 1405, T.C. Memo 1992-683 (1992), aff'd per curiam without opinion, 15 F.3d 1987 (9th Cir. 1993); United States v. Barker, 90-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,490 (N.D. Calif. 1990); United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34, 90-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,575 (6th Cir. 1990).
I haven't read past the 1st line or 2, but I never said the collection form's validity negated the requirement for paying a lawfully mandated tax. I was talking about penalties for not filing the form. I'll get back to you after I have the rest of the message.
While you're reading the above information, I'm adding the following as an illustration of how the law works. This is an excerpt from the case of United States v. Hicks (at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit:
"Robert W. Hicks appeals his conviction for willful failure to file tax returns for the four years 1983 through 1986. Hicks argues that the Internal Revenue Service's alleged failure to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act precludes his being penalized for failing to file a return [ . . . ]
"At the close of the prosecution's case in chief, Hicks filed motions for judgment of acquittal, arguing, as he does here, that the IRS violated the Paperwork Reduction Act by its failure to display Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control numbers and expiration dates on Form 1040 and associated instruction booklets and regulations [ . . . ]
"The public protection provision of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-511, 94 Stat. 2812 (codified at 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), states: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to . . . provide information to any agency if the information collection request involved . . . does not display a current [OMB] control number . . . ." 44 U.S.C. §3512. The PRA and regulations promulgated under the PRA require that federal government agency information collection requests display OMB control numbers and, when appropriate, expiration dates. [ . . . ]
"The IRS, like any federal agency, must comply with the PRA and, in particular, must display OMB control numbers on its tax return forms and on its regulations. [ . . . ] But even assuming without deciding that the IRS failed to comply with the PRA here, its failure does not prevent Hicks from being penalized.
The legislative history of the PRA and its structure as a whole lead us to conclude that it was aimed at reining in agency activity. See S. Rep. No. 930, 96th Cong. 2d Sess., reprinted at 1980 U.S. Code Cong. & Adm. News 6241 (legislative history of PRA). Where an agency fails to follow the PRA in regard to an information collection request that the agency promulgates via regulation, at its own discretion, and without express prior mandate from Congress, a citizen may indeed escape penalties for failing to comply with the agency's request. See, e.g., United States v. Hatch, 919 F.2d 1394 (9th Cir. 1990); United States v. Smith, 866 F.2d 1092 (9th Cir. 1989). But where Congress sets forth an explicit statutory requirement that the citizen provide information, and provides statutory criminal penalties for failure to comply with the request, that is another matter. This is a legislative command, not an administrative request. The PRA was not meant to provide criminals with an all-purpose escape hatch. See United States v. Burdett, No. CR 91-00340 (E.D.N.Y. July 30,1991); see also United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34, 38 (6th Cir. 1990) ("Defendant was not convicted of violating a regulation but of violating a statute which required him to file an income tax return.").
"Moreover, the provision of the tax code under which Hicks was convicted predates the PRA by over 25 years. If, in enacting the PRA, Congress had intended to repeal 26 U.S.C. 7203, it could have done so explicitly. Repeals by implication are not favored. Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 549 (1974). Congress enacted the PRA to keep agencies, including the IRS, from deluging the public with needless paperwork. It did not do so to create a loophole in the tax code."
--from United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356, 91-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,549 (9th Cir. 1991).
""Robert W. Hicks appeals his conviction for willful failure to file tax returns for the four years 1983 through 1986."
""The public protection provision of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-511, 94 Stat. 2812 (codified at 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), states:..."
My understanding is that Congress passed the revision in 1998 to, among other things, clarify that the IRS was not immune to the PRA and it's requirements nor was the public protection afforded by it meaningless. In terms of current law, I would think the PRA of 1980 is a bit irrelevant as are any rulings based upon it. But, that's just me.
You should consider rechecking your sources. Section 3512 was not amended in 1998. The statute has been amended once or twice, but there have been no changes in the law like the ones you describe. Yours, Famspear
PS - This is not about the "IRS being immune from the statute." The IRS doesn't need to be "immune" from the statute. This is about taxpayers' legal obligations under the Internal Revenue Code. Yours, Famspear (21 May 2007).
This is about taxpayers' legal obligations under the Internal Revenue Code.
Which have been well-defined by the courts, and do not allow a taxpayer to assert a PRA or OMB defense.
- - - - - - - - - - -
"The real George Washington was shot dead fairly early in the Revolution." ~ David Merrill, 9-17-2004 --- "This is where I belong" ~ Heidi Guedel, 7-1-2006 (referring to suijuris.net)
- - - - - - - - - - -
In a November 21, 2007, status report in Springer's latest suit against the IRS (06-cv-00156, NDOK), DOJ asks for either stayed discovery or a discovery limitation, in part because "plaintiff is the subject of an active criminal investigation".
They may be using a different definition of "active" than the rest of us.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
1. Springer's appeal from the Tax Court's action on his collection due process hearing is still pending in the 10th Circuit, and the government has already filed a motion for sanctions payable to the US in the amount of $8,000 payable jointly and severally by Springer and his lawyer, Jerold Barringer, because the only issue on appeal is the application of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and both Springer and Barringer have lost (and been sanctioned) on that issue before. The government also suggests that the 10th Circuit put in an additional $10,000 in sanctions for itself.
2. Springer filed two separate lawsuits on account of $2,000 alleged to be missing after the IRS executed a search warrant on his home. The agents conducting the search inventoried "approximately $19,000" in cash, but only $17,000 was deposited by the agents with the bank, and only $17,000 was returned. An action against the US and its lawyers under IRC section 7433 was dismissed with prejudice yesterday, April 10. (No. 08-CV-4-GKF-FHM) The other action, against the agents individually under a "Bivens" theory, has survived several motions to dismiss, most recently on 4/7, and appears to be headed for a jury trial. (No. 4:06-cv-00156-GKF-FHM) The docket in the Bivens action is at #173, and I would guess that the defendants have collectively spent more than $100,000 in legal fees over what seems to be a $2,000 claim.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
I have followed the other threads in regards to Mr. Springer's endeavors, but does anyone know if he is still scheduled for court tomorrow 9-16-09 in regards to the IRS lien on his home? Also, the date of 10-26-09 still valid for the charges against him and Oscar Stilley?
Lindsey Kent Springer has a prior federal conviction for odometer fraud. In that case, he was released from federal custody on March 13, 1989.
In 2009, Springer was convicted of conspiring to defraud the United States, three counts of tax evasion, and two counts of willfully failing to file tax returns. United States v. Lindsey Kent Springer et al., No. 09-cr-043-JHP, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Nov. 16, 2009).
On April 23, 2010, Springer was sentenced to 15 years in prison, three years of supervised release following his imprisonment, and ordered to pay $700,000 in restitution. As of July 24, 2010, he is located at the Big Spring Federal Correctional Institution at Big Spring, Texas (inmate # 02580-063).
His projected release date is May 17, 2023.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Springer is still at the La Tuna Federal Correctional Institution at Anthony, Texas, near El Paso. His projected release date has been changed from May 17 to May 18, 2023.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
