The IRS publishes "40 frivolous positions"

[Demosthenes]

Subject: RR-2007-19, RR-2007-20, RR-2007-21, RR-2007-22, N-2007-30 & IR-2007-61: IRS Identifies 40 Frivolous Positions for Taxpayers to Avoid On Tax Returns

Rev. Rul. 2007-19 discusses and refutes the frivolous position taken by some taxpayers that wages are not taxable income.

Rev. Rul. 2007-20 discusses and refutes the frivolous position taken by some taxpayers that complying with the internal revenue laws is purely voluntary and that taxpayers are not legally required to file federal tax returns or pay federal tax because the filing of a tax return or the payment of tax is a matter of choice.

Revenue Rule 2007-21 discusses and refutes the frivolous position taken by some taxpayers that before the IRS may collect overdue taxes, the IRS must provide taxpayers with a summary record of assessment made on a Form 23C, “Assessment Certificate-Summary Record of Assessments,” or on another particular form. These taxpayers claim that if a Form 23C is not provided, the assessment is invalid and the IRS may not collect any taxes due.

Revenue Ruling 2007-22 discusses and refutes the frivolous position taken by some taxpayers that they are not subject to federal income tax, or that their income is excluded from taxation, because either (1) they claim to have rejected or renounced United States citizenship and are citizens exclusively of a State (sometimes characterized as a “natural-born citizen” of a “sovereign state”), or (2) they are not persons as identified by the Internal Revenue Code.

Notice 2007-30 lists positions identified as frivolous for purposes of the penalty under section 6702 of the Code for filing a frivolous tax return or submitting to the IRS a frivolous request for a collection due process hearing or application for an installment agreement, offer-in-compromise, or Taxpayer Assistance Order. Taxpayers who file a tax return or make a submission based on a position listed in this notice are subject to a $5,000 penalty.

IR-2007-61: IRS Identifies 40 Frivolous Positions for Taxpayers to Avoid On Tax Returns

Rev. Rul. 2007-19; Rev. Rule 2007-20; Rev. Rule 2007-21; Rev. Rule 2007-22 and Notice 2007-30 will be published in IRB 2007-14, dated April 2, 2007.

[Nikki]

Rev. Rul. 2007-19; Rev. Rule 2007-20; Rev. Rule 2007-21; Rev. Rule 2007-22 and Notice 2007-30 will be published in IRB 2007-14, dated April 2, 2007.

to be followed immediately by a point-by-point rebuttal and refutation by Chris Hansen.

[Imalawman]

It's kind of like the Kama Sutra - only no partner is required and it is not nearly as much fun. Not by a good stretch.

PRA frivolous arguments are nowhere near as fun as Arisen Phoenix Reenters the Cinnabar Cavern......

That one should have had keyboard warnings!!! We've gotten slack around here with those.

[Demosthenes]

The IRS should really start thinking like a TP.

Direct quotes from the new warnings.

Nothing in the Internal Revenue Code imposes a requirement to file a return or pay tax, or that a person is not required to file a tax return or pay a tax unless the Internal Revenue Service responds to the person’s questions, correspondence, or a request to identify a provision in the Code requiring the filing of a return or the payment of tax.

Because filing a tax return is not required by law, the Service must prepare a return for a taxpayer who does not file one in order to assess and collect tax.

An employer is not legally obligated to withhold income or employment taxes on employees’ wages.

A taxpayer may “untax” himself or herself at any time or revoke the consent to be taxed and thereafter not be subject to internal revenue taxes.

Only persons who have contracted with the government by applying for a governmental privilege or benefit, such as holding a Social Security number, are subject to tax, and those who have contracted with the government may choose to revoke the contract at will.

An administrative summons issued by the Service is per se invalid and compliance with a summons is not legally required.

[LPC]

God damn it. I though I finally had the TP FAQ II ready to go (bigger, longer, and uncut) and now I think I need to incorporate all these new rulings and frivolous submission rules.

So it'll take me several more days.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Someone at the IRS needs to be put through Judge Roy Bean's "writing for the comprehension of the average person" course.

Hello, IRS - your average taxpayer/tax questioner/tax protester is at best at a 5th grade reading level.

If you can't explain it clearly at that level you deserve the results.

[notorial dissent]

Someone at the IRS needs to be put through Judge Roy Bean's "writing for the comprehension of the average person" course.

Hello, IRS - your average taxpayer/tax questioner/tax protester is at best at a 5th grade reading level.

If you can't explain it clearly at that level you deserve the results.

One should remember that these are the same bright lights who sent out the infamous letters teliing the faithful that they did not have to pay taxes on certain types of trusts instead of telling them that they weren't valid entities to begin with.

[ASITStands]

Someone at the IRS needs to be put through Judge Roy Bean's "writing for the comprehension of the average person" course.

Hello, IRS - your average taxpayer/tax questioner/tax protester is at best at a 5th grade reading level.

If you can't explain it clearly at that level you deserve the results.

Many in the tax movement are frustrated and angry over what they perceive to be the "vagueness" of tax law. Couple that perception with the ramblings of some 'guru' explaining all the little details how it doesn't apply to the ordinary person, etc., and you come up with a mess.

It takes clear, concise explanation [such as can be found at the FAQ] to convince a person, and then, only those who can be honest with themselves. I'll agree with the sentiment, writing for the comprehension of the average person.

[Kimokeo]

$5,000 dollars. Do we hear more?

[gottago]

IRS Identifies 40 Frivolous Positions

Who is posing for them

[LPC]

There's a thread on Notice 2007-30 at [url=http://www.losthorizons.com/Forum3/topi ... IC_ID=1353]Lost Horizons[/quote], and a common reaction is that they'll simply need to redefine more words.