Is the "funny box"... falling apart?

[Weston White]

Posted at LH, thought it had many good points to consider about how the IRS works... for example how is it justified to assess $140,000 on one individual for one tax year? That is just insane and obviously misapplies the IRC.

Is "Frivolous" Getting Serious?
By Ruth Benn, NWTRCC Coordinator

Since August, the NWTRCC office has heard from about six people who have received an IRS warning letter that they may be subject to a $5,000 frivolous penalty because of "the position you have taken" when filing a 2007 tax return. All had filed an honest return, and some paid part of the taxes shown due. All enclosed a letter with their return stating reasons of conscience for refusing to pay the total shown.

A couple months after receiving the warning letter and after complying with the IRS demand to refile and pay the tax in full, one couple received notice that they were each being slapped with a $5,000 fine. This was quite a shock for first-time resisters. Clearly the IRS was out of bounds in imposing the penalty (especially $5,000 each since they had filed jointly and the penalty is supposed to be "per return"). The couple immediately called the IRS to complain, filed a complaint with the Taxpayer Advocate office, and contacted their Congressperson's office. They have since heard that the fine has been lifted, and that the Taxpayer Advocate office was helpful in that process, but the stress that resulted is hard to get over.

The IRS still maintains that the couple's return was "unprocessable." IRS regulations describe a "frivolous tax return" as one that "does not contain information on which the substantial correctness of the self-assessment may be judged, or contains information that on its face indicates that the self-assessment is substantially incorrect." The penalty should only apply if the return meets that criteria and the taxpayer indicates a position that the IRS has identified as frivolous. The IRS has a list of about 44 frivolous arguments, including some related to conscience, religion, and protests of military spending.

At our recent meeting in Eugene two other resisters reported receiving the IRS warning letter in recent years but did not reply and did not hear from the IRS again. Another couple said that for a number of years they have sent in a blank return with a message written on it about their refusal to pay for war. Despite the fact that this is the sort of return that the IRS could call frivolous, this couple has never heard from the IRS.

It seems reasonable to deduce that the IRS carries out their "frivolous" policy in random and inconsistent way. Some IRS employees who process returns may have limited understanding of the regulation, or perhaps they just don't like seeing a letter sent with a return. It appears that the IRS's "frivolous office" in Ogden, Utah, is improperly sending warnings to resisters who have filed an honest return.

We are reminded that in 1984 after the IRS instituted the "frivolous" return penalty, Karl Meyer called for a "cabbage patch" response, filing a form every day for a year to defy this new policy. He was assessed $140,000 in penalties during 1984, and in February 1985 the IRS seized his station wagon in an attempt to collect on the fines. It was sold for $1,020. Karl continues staunchly to refuse to pay for war.

Please contact the NWTRCC office if you have been threatened with or received the fine. We attempt to keep updated information at http://www.nwtrcc.org/frivolous.htm

There are more groups involved in this fight than you can imagine. Some creative individual may start an organization based on the bailout scam as
it relates to taxes. It maybe called "Citizens against bailout Scam".

Go to the above site link and read the info. Interesting group with a valid argument.

[Demosthenes]

Is the "funny box"... falling apart?

No. The funny box is alive and well and making life miserable for the fools swigging detax-flavored Koolaid.

Penalizing people $5,000 who waste the IRS' time is not a misapplication of the IRC, it's the law specifically passed by Congress for two purposes: 1) deterrence (tps are generally low income people so $5,000 is a significant hit,) and 2) when tps face criminal charges, the $5,000 penalty process kicks the teeth out of a possible Cheek defense.

Tax deniers don't know about that second bit yet. The $5,000 penalty and it's process has been in place long enough for those cases to be appearing in criminal court.

[Weston White]

Wow, I guess you did not have to even think about it before making that post.

The fact is that the IRS is misapplying 6702, at most (presuming that CtC files are wrong) there is only of the two requirements being met within that statute, so far as CtC filers are concerned that is. Thus, that section would not be legally applicable.

[Demosthenes]

The fact is that the IRS is misapplying 6702

Prove it.

[LPC]

for example how is it justified to assess $140,000 on one individual for one tax year? That is just insane and obviously misapplies the IRC.

Reading comprehension problems again? Or is multiplication too difficult for you?

From the article you just quoted:

We are reminded that in 1984 after the IRS instituted the "frivolous" return penalty, Karl Meyer called for a "cabbage patch" response, filing a form every day for a year to defy this new policy. He was assessed $140,000 in penalties during 1984,

In 1984, the frivolous return penalty was $500. If you filed a frivolous return every weekday (taking the weekends off), for 52 weeks, and you've filed 2,600 returns, for total penalties of $130,000. Add 20 more returns filed on the occasional Saturday, and you've got $140,000 in penalties.

The fine for littering might be only $500, but if you insist on driving by the police station every day and dumping a bag of trash on the front steps, the fines are going to add up.

[Weston White]

The fine for littering might be only $500, but if you insist on driving by the police station every day and dumping a bag of trash on the front steps, the fines are going to add up.

You know when you post crap like this I find it very difficult to take you the least bit serious. Also it demeans your credibility when you say you fight against the IRS.

By your logic if somebody litters 1,000 pieces of paper during the same instance of littering, that would be 1,000 separate charges. That is not how it works.

What this article is stating is an abuse of government powers. This person filed the same returns for the same tax year in an act of peaceful protest, clearly his right to do so. By this logic if I receive a 6702 charge and am told to correct it within one month, I attempt to and send in new forms, the IRS still does not like what I sent them, by your logic I just accrued an entirely new charge against me. That is this law is meant to work. Just as it is not meant to be applied to each person upon the return, individually, only upon the return itself, nor is it meant to include other supporting forms that go along with the return, such as the 4852, and as such pertains to a specific tax year; or the single instance of the violating act being committed, as a measure in time would pertain to a given tax year.

Clearly, these fines were assessed by people that truly have not a clue in hell about what they are actually doing. In this case issuing fines was not the appropriate action to be have been taken against the party. There was a grievance that should have been addressed, obviously it was instead ignored.

[Weston White]

The fact is that the IRS is misapplying 6702

Prove it.

lol, look in nearly any threat at LH, it is extensively discussed there. As a quick overview: 1. There are two parts to the statue that are required to be met, each part has two potential violations that could occur, 2. 6702 does not seem to be listed within the Federal Register, 3. There is no Regulation for 6702, 4. The definition of the 'persons', 5. 6702 is NULL within the PTOA, and 6. The only reported data upon the W-2 (for most of us) that the IRS had received had been misreported to the IRS by the payer (due to a undetermined level of ignorance) as "income", when it reality the type of money transferred from the payer to the payee is only taxable by law under an established "capitation tax", 7. The "income tax" is not a "capitation tax", it is an "excise tax".

[LPC]

The fine for littering might be only $500, but if you insist on driving by the police station every day and dumping a bag of trash on the front steps, the fines are going to add up.

You know when you post crap like this I find it very difficult to take you the least bit serious. Also it demeans your credibility when you say you fight against the IRS.

By your logic if somebody litters 1,000 pieces of paper during the same instance of littering, that would be 1,000 separate charges. That is not how it works.

If the crackpot in question had mailed one 1,000 page frivolous return, or had even mailed 1,000 separate forms in one envelope, you might have a point.

But he didn't. He mailed "a form every day for a year." That's what the article says. And, if he had driven to the police station every day to dump a bag of trash on the front steps, that would been a new fine every day.

You so badly want to believe that the government is wrong and you are right that you have become totally irrational.

[Paul]

Don't forget, Dan, that this is the same maroon who thinks asitstands has a point when he claims that there is something wrong with the OMB lumping multiple related forms into under one number under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Each form must have a separate number! But each filing of a frivolous form cannot be counted as a separate filing!

Results first, rationale to follow.

[Demosthenes]

1. There are two parts to the statue that are required to be met, each part has two potential violations that could occur, 2. 6702 does not seem to be listed within the Federal Register, 3. There is no Regulation for 6702, 4. The definition of the 'persons', 5. 6702 is NULL within the PTOA, and 6. The only reported data upon the W-2 (for most of us) that the IRS had received had been misreported to the IRS by the payer (due to a undetermined level of ignorance) as "income", when it reality the type of money transferred from the payer to the payee is only taxable by law under an established "capitation tax", 7. The "income tax" is not a "capitation tax", it is an "excise tax".

Out of curiosity, have you ever have any original ideas concerning the income tax?

[jkeeb]

lol, look in nearly any threat at LH, it is extensively discussed there. As a quick overview: 1. There are two parts to the statue that are required to be met, each part has two potential violations that could occur, 2. 6702 does not seem to be listed within the Federal Register, 3. There is no Regulation for 6702, 4. The definition of the 'persons', 5. 6702 is NULL within the PTOA, and 6. The only reported data upon the W-2 (for most of us) that the IRS had received had been misreported to the IRS by the payer (due to a undetermined level of ignorance) as "income", when it reality the type of money transferred from the payer to the payee is only taxable by law under an established "capitation tax", 7. The "income tax" is not a "capitation tax", it is an "excise tax".

As a quick overview: 1. There are two parts to the statue that are required to be met, each part has two potential violations that could occur, [ A CTC return meets both parts of 6702. A CTC return shows zero income from wages but withholding from wages. This would meet the criteria under 6702(1)(B). The conduct meets both parts of 6702(2) in that the conduct is based on a position the Secretary has identified as frivolous and would also reflect a desire to impede the administration of tax laws. 2. 6702 does not seem to be listed within the Federal Register,[the current version of 6702 was passed under public law 109-432] 3. There is no Regulation for 6702,[ Nor is there a requirement in the law that there be a regulation] 4. The definition of the 'persons', 5. 6702 is NULL within the PTOA,[huh?] and 6. The only reported data upon the W-2 (for most of us) that the IRS had received had been misreported to the IRS by the payer (due to a undetermined level of ignorance) as "income", when it reality the type of money transferred from the payer to the payee is only taxable by law under an established "capitation tax",[Your contention which has been determined to be a frivolous position for a longer time than PH has been spouting it.} 7. The "income tax" is not a "capitation tax", it is an "excise tax".[Or as the Supremes stated is in the nature of excises]

[Demosthenes]

The definition of the 'persons'

Please, Weston, do explain.

[Paul]

7. The "income tax" is not a "capitation tax", it is an "excise tax".

I thought you said that Adam Smith said that it's a capitation tax.

[Joey Smith]

Think of it this way: There is a fine for using the turnpike without paying the toll. Every time somebody drives on the turnpike without paying the fine, it is a separate fine. If they drive without paying the toll for five days, they have five different fines, not one, which is exactly the intention of Congress in enacting the penalty to make each bogus return a separate violation.

When people file plainly incorrect gibberish with the IRS, there is a cost for the IRS to deal with it. BTW, if the Irwin Schiffs and Lynne Merediths and Eddie Kahns and Pete Hendricksons, etc., etc., had not caused the filing of so many bogus returns, there would not have been any need to increase the penalty to where it is today. But they did, so there it is.

[Weston White]

7. The "income tax" is not a "capitation tax", it is an "excise tax".

I thought you said that Adam Smith said that it's a capitation tax.

What? Not I said that only a tax upon labor can be a capitation tax, as that what its definition is. Neither class of tax can be the other.

[Weston White]

Think of it this way: There is a fine for using the turnpike without paying the toll. Every time somebody drives on the turnpike without paying the fine, it is a separate fine. If they drive without paying the toll for five days, they have five different fines, not one, which is exactly the intention of Congress in enacting the penalty to make each bogus return a separate violation.

When people file plainly incorrect gibberish with the IRS, there is a cost for the IRS to deal with it. BTW, if the Irwin Schiffs and Lynne Merediths and Eddie Kahns and Pete Hendricksons, etc., etc., had not caused the filing of so many bogus returns, there would not have been any need to increase the penalty to where it is today. But they did, so there it is.

No the toll levied for using a bridge is for each passing not for each day, as the toll levied for the income tax is annually. Not the same thing.

Oh yea, I am entirely sure it costs the IRS $5,000 for every return they have to gloss over... sure, right!! wink wink... I guess that is that new kind of math they are using, right? You that one where a toilet seat costs $10,000 and a hammer costs $1,500, etc., etc.

Complete and utter BOLLOCKS!

[Weston White]

Oh and I forget about .8 6201(a)(1).

(a) Authority of Secretary
...
Taxes shown on return

The Secretary shall assess all taxes determined by the taxpayer

or by the Secretary as to which returns or lists are made under this title.

The latter portion would only apply in cases of 6020(b)(1):

...
(b) Execution of return by Secretary
(1) Authority of Secretary to execute return
If any person fails to make any return required by any internal revenue law or regulation made thereunder at the time prescribed therefor, or makes, willfully or otherwise, a false or fraudulent return, the Secretary shall make such return from his own knowledge and from such information as he can obtain through testimony or otherwise.

[Weston White]

The definition of the 'persons'

Please, Weston, do explain.

6671
(b) Person defined
The term “person”, as used in this subchapter, includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.

The ‘term’ "Includes" only “includes” other classes or categories which are similar or the same as those defined therein. "Person" is a special 'term' that applies only to this body of law and to nothing else. Otherwise what you claim that it means, which I presume would be everybody, anybody, and anything, would not be necessary, because that is what it would have already meant if not defined for the specific purpose of this subchapter.

As an example this is from the Subtitle F, which applies throughout the IRC.

7701
(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—
(1) Person
The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.

There see what was specifically left out of the definition that applies to 6702? Here I will point it out to you "... an individual ...". They did this for a very specific purpose.

[Weston White]

1. There are two parts to the statue that are required to be met, each part has two potential violations that could occur, 2. 6702 does not seem to be listed within the Federal Register, 3. There is no Regulation for 6702, 4. The definition of the 'persons', 5. 6702 is NULL within the PTOA, and 6. The only reported data upon the W-2 (for most of us) that the IRS had received had been misreported to the IRS by the payer (due to a undetermined level of ignorance) as "income", when it reality the type of money transferred from the payer to the payee is only taxable by law under an established "capitation tax", 7. The "income tax" is not a "capitation tax", it is an "excise tax".

Out of curiosity, have you ever have any original ideas concerning the income tax?

What does that matter and why do you care?

[Weston White]

Don't forget, Dan, that this is the same maroon who thinks asitstands has a point when he claims that there is something wrong with the OMB lumping multiple related forms into under one number under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Each form must have a separate number! But each filing of a frivolous form cannot be counted as a separate filing!

Results first, rationale to follow.

No there is a very valid point that supporting documents would not need their own OMB Control Number, though you ignore that several of those documents that now sure the same number, use to have their own OMB Control Number. In either case all supported forms would need to be listed upon the OMB 83-whatever submission form, I reviewed a copy of one I had and that does appear to be the case, there was several schedules listed on it.

That does not change the fact tha the 1040 is not in compliance with the PRA/OMB.

And like hello he was filing forms to affect the same tax year not different tax years, and from the sound of it the IRS was not recognizing his submissions anyway, so no harm no foul. He was obviously engaging in an act of protest, that is his right and he should have not been punished for it.