Clueless posters "medclass" and "dmiladin" at losthorizons

A collection of old posts from all forums. No new threads or new posts in old threads allowed. For archive use only.
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Clueless posters "medclass" and "dmiladin" at losthorizons

Post by Famspear »

More nonsensical crap from losthorizons. Contributor “medclass” writes:
Revenue agents (tax clerks) are not federal employees; can’t be sued under 26 USC 7214.

Revenue agents allowed to keep anything they collect.and do not pay income tax themselves since they are not federal employees. Are private collectors for the private owners of the Federal Reserve Bank.
http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1025

Duhh…

Well, in a sense it's actually correct to say that "revenue agents cannot be sued under 26 USC 7214" -- but not for the reason that this clueless loser called "medclass" apparently thinks. Nothing in 26 USC 7214 states that IRS revenue agents can or cannot be sued. Section 7214 deals with a different topic. Wrong citation, you clueless nitwit!

To the extent that a lawsuit cannot be maintained against an IRS revenue agent, that would be because of sovereign immunity or some statute prohibiting such a suit, etc., which if anything would of course be an indication that an IRS revenue agent IS a federal government employee! Duhh...

IRS Revenue Agents usually do not “collect” taxes. That’s usually done by IRS Revenue Officers. And, no, Revenue Officers are not allowed to “keep anything they collect.” And both Revenue Agents and Revenue Officers are required to pay U.S. federal income tax themselves.

There is not merely “one” Federal Reserve “Bank.” There are twelve Federal Reserve Banks. The Federal Reserve Banks are only components of something called the "Federal Reserve System." Some parts of the System are governmental and other parts are non-governmental (ie., “private”). IRS employees are not “private collectors” for the “private owners of the Federal Reserve Bank.” Duhhh.......

And, further down in the same losthorizons thread, in contending that the Internal Revenue Service is not a “government agency,” a clueless user called “dmiladin” writes:
If [the Internal Revenue Service] it is a government agency indeed, please do explain why it isn't mentioned in USC Title 31 Subtitle I Chapter 3 Department of the Treasury (which appears on top of all their correspondence) or USC Title 5?
Duhh… Clue to “dmiladin”: U.S. governmental agencies are not required to be “mentioned” in provisions of the United States Code in order for those governmental agencies to BE governmental agencies. But since you brought this up (actually, since you copied and pasted this tired old, long discredited crap from other tax protester web sites without even checking the accuracy vel non), let me be the one to break the news to you…..

The U.S. federal government agency known as the “Internal Revenue Service” is specifically mentioned multiple times in the very statutes you cited. For example:

31 USC 301(f)(2)

31 USC 330(c)(1)

5 USC 500(c)

5 USC 9508(a)

5 USC 9509(b)(1)(A)

5 USC 9509(b)(2)

5 USC 9509(c)

5 USC 9510(a)(1)

5 USC 9510(b)(1)

5 USC 9510(c)

5 USC 9510(d)

5 USC 9510(e)(2)

The “Internal Revenue Service” is also mentioned in 31 USC 713(a). The “Internal Revenue Service” is also specifically mentioned roughly 200 times in the Internal Revenue Code itself.

Now, wipe the drool off your chin, losthorizons losers!
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Clueless posters "medclass" and "dmiladin" at losthorizons

Post by Famspear »

Also, check out the last two sentences of subsection (a) of section 7214. Although it does not say that an IRS employee can or cannot be sued, it does provide a remedy.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Doktor Avalanche
Asst Secretary, the Dept of Jesters
Posts: 1767
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Yuba City, CA

Re: Clueless posters "medclass" and "dmiladin" at losthorizons

Post by Doktor Avalanche »

Famspear wrote: Well, in a sense it's actually correct to say that "revenue agents cannot be sued under 26 USC 7214" -- but not for the reason that this clueless loser called "medclass" apparently thinks. Nothing in 26 USC 7214 states that IRS revenue agents can or cannot be sued. Section 7214 deals with a different topic. Wrong citation, you clueless nitwit!
You didn't seriously think they'd get the right citation, did you? I think my eyeballs would explode if that ever happened.
The laissez-faire argument relies on the same tacit appeal to perfection as does communism. - George Soros
Quixote
Quatloosian Master of Deception
Posts: 1542
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 2:00 am
Location: Sanhoudalistan

Re: Clueless posters "medclass" and "dmiladin" at losthorizons

Post by Quixote »

Bad news, Famspear. The noted legal scholar Mutter disagrees with you.
Oh yes they can be sued under 7214 ive read some of these cases!

Essentially this point is moot as just like the Fed. Res. they are treated as a gov agency. If you beleive other wise then show me a case where someone attempted to sue an IRS agent under 7214 where the judge says specifically they are NOT a gov. agency.
I'm sure someone will post a cite soon.
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat
Quixote
Quatloosian Master of Deception
Posts: 1542
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 2:00 am
Location: Sanhoudalistan

Re: Clueless posters "medclass" and "dmiladin" at losthorizons

Post by Quixote »

medclass has "corrected" his citation to IRC §7204. Section 7204 concerns furnishing payees with false information returns. I'm sure he meant 7240, a repealed section dealing with officials investing in sugar.
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Clueless posters "medclass" and "dmiladin" at losthorizons

Post by Famspear »

Recall that "mutter" claims that government employees can be sued under section 7214:
Oh yes they can be sued under 7214 ive read some of these cases!
User "dmiladin" challenges mutter:
How about you show one of these cases you've seen[,] as I've never come accross [sic] a case where they get sued as federal agents.
Now (keyboard alert.....) mutter responds with:
No my friend the claiment [sic] must prove the claim. and you are the claiment [sic] not me. Besides I dont [sic] have the cases anymore.
http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... fb558#9124

(bolding added)
Can you say chutzpah??????

Hey mutter, you dimwit: The original assertion was a negative statement; the assertion was that government employees CANNOT be sued under 7214. You, mutter, are making the positive claim that they CAN be sued under that section. YOU are the claimant, you drooling knuckledragger!

Hey Crackheads: Pay attention! Yes, civil lawsuits may indeed be maintained in limited circumstances against government personnel (such as IRS personnel) under various provisions of the Internal Revenue Code -- but section 7214 is not one of those provisions. Section 7214 is a statute providing for criminal penalties, not for "civil actions" by taxpayers against government personnel. As noted above, 7214 does provide for a limited remedy (the last two sentences of subsection (a) of section 7214), but 7214 itself does NOT state that the injured party may maintain a civil action for damages.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Clueless posters "medclass" and "dmiladin" at losthorizons

Post by Famspear »

Now, "mutter" digs himself in deeper with links to the following court decisions: Standefer v. United States, 447 U.S. 10 (1980) and Davis v. United States, 81-1 USTC ¶9458 (1st Cir. 1981), neither of which support his proposition.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Clueless posters "medclass" and "dmiladin" at losthorizons

Post by Famspear »

In fairness to "mutter," he may just not be bright enough to understand that a civil lawsuit by a taxpayer against a government employee and a criminal prosecution of a government employee are two different things.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Clueless posters "medclass" and "dmiladin" at losthorizons

Post by Famspear »

For cases actually on point, see: Steinman v. Internal Revenue Serv., 97-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶50,396 (D. Ariz. 1997), citing Detwiler v. United States, 406 F.Supp. 695, 700, 76-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶9140 (E.D. Pa. 1975), aff'd, 544 F.2d 512 (3rd Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1105 (1977) ("26 U.S.C. §7214, which subjects revenue officers and agents to criminal liability for engaging in various prohibited conduct, does not provide for a private right of action").

Strong v. United States, 99-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶50,146 (W.D. La. 1998), to similar effect.

Similarly: Zolman v. Internal Revenue Serv., 87 F.Supp 2d 763, 99-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶50,995 (W.D. Mich. 1999).
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet