Erroneous Congressman's Letter or Erroneous Interpretation?

[NYGman]

Also point out that the letter was drafted in 1985, and on a whole, tax laws have changed from that point in time. Further, as for legal reliance, I don't think this letter even blips the scale. You have IRS Code/Regs, Temporary regs, Case Law, Revenue Rulings, Revenue procedures, proposed regs, legislative history, IRS Notices, PLR's (to a lessor degree), and I am probably missing a few more. All of these items would be given more weight than a 30 year old letter from a former congressman, of dubious origin.

I certainly would not want to go to court against the IRS with only this letter to hand.

[notorial dissent]

It certainly won't be the first, or last for that matter, time that some Congresscritter sent out something stupid and or wrong. The normal course of events would have been for them to have forwarded the request to the IRS to be answered, maybe they did and maybe they didn't. I am still more than inclined to put these down to something along the lines of the Trafficante speech. In any case, Congresscrtters ARE NOT valid legal references for anything.

[AndyK]

I was following a discussion of this letter on an online forum: http://www.losthorizons.com/comment/noticeoflevy.htm

So is this letter accurate or is the interpretation off from what I have seen people on forums assume? Thanks.

Looks right to me.

PD: ANYTHING posted on Lost Horizons (or LoserHeads as we call them) is presumable to be bogus. Why don't you do some research on the L.H. founder to dig up his resume and qualifications.

[Famspear]

Speaking of the L.H. founder, Peter Eric ("Blowhard") Hendrickson, and his resume and qualifications:

http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/peter-hendrickson

[Patriotdiscussions]

I was following a discussion of this letter on an online forum: http://www.losthorizons.com/comment/noticeoflevy.htm

So is this letter accurate or is the interpretation off from what I have seen people on forums assume? Thanks.

Looks right to me.

PD: ANYTHING posted on Lost Horizons (or LoserHeads as we call them) is presumable to be bogus. Why don't you do some research on the L.H. founder to dig up his resume and qualifications.

I believe that to be true about peter and his site as well, hence why im not there asking them questions.

However if the letter is false or not, nothing in the paragraph gives authority to levy private citizens, in fact, I have yet to find a irs reg/code that does say they have the authority to levy private citizens.


Now I know you folks will say, the first sentence does, ,and I know the government agrees with you, lots of case law, yada,yada.

Now you guys assume that levy can be made against any taxpayer, if that is the case, and this portion of the law has been getting challenged for over 20 years, why does it still say this.....

Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official.


When it would make more sense, and fit better with the golden rule to say this....

Levy may be made on any taxpayer.

Lets hear the reason why.

[Famspear]

However if the letter is false or not, nothing in the paragraph gives authority to levy private citizens, in fact, I have yet to find a irs reg/code that does say they have the authority to levy private citizens.

Wrong. The statute cited gives the authority to levy private citizens. And yes, you have found the Code section that authorizes the IRS to levy the assets of a private citizen.

Now I know you folks will say, the first sentence does, ,and I know the government agrees with you, lots of case law, yada,yada.

No, not "yada, yada." The law is what the Code says, and the law is what the courts rule the Code to mean.

Now you guys assume that levy can be made against any taxpayer, if that is the case, and this portion of the law has been getting challenged for over 20 years, why does it still say this.....

Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official.

We've already answered that question. Earlier in this thread.

When it would make more sense, and fit better with the golden rule to say this....

Levy may be made on any taxpayer.

Lets hear the reason why.

No, let's not hear the reason why. Go back and read my earlier post in this thread. The law hasn't changed in the last few days since I posted that material.

The law is never going to be what you want it to be, "Patriotdiscussions." The law is what the statute says, and what the courts rule the statute to mean.

[Famspear]

One of the hallmarks of tax protesters is that they often claim that a particular statute has to be worded in just a certain way for the law to be what the courts rule the law to be. This is an imaginary rule made up by tax protesters. Unfortunately for them, there is no such rule.

Statutes are worded the way they are worded, and courts interpret the meaning of statutes based on certain legal doctrines. Under the U.S. legal system, the law means what the courts rule the law to mean. Interpreting U.S. federal law -- saying what the law is in the context of an actual case or controversy -- is a judicial function, not a "Patriotdiscussions" function.

[The Observer]

Even more to the point is the fact that there have been a number of court cases (some of which have been posted on Quatloos as examples) where the tax protester failed making that argument. PD will never be able to show that the argument has prevailed and been upheld by other courts.

[Famspear]

Oh, what the heck......



Regarding the goofy tax protester argument that section 6331 should allow the IRS to seize only the salary of an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States or the District of Columbia, the argument was rejected over 50 years ago, by the United States Supreme Court in Sims v. United States, 359 U.S. 108 (1959), as noted earlier in this thread.

Tax protesters have presented variations of this argument, which the courts have always ruled to be without legal merit. See, e.g., the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in James v. United States, 970 F.2d 750, 755, n. 9 (10th Cir. 1992).

See also Peth v. Breitzmann, 611 F. Supp. 50 (E.D. Wis. 1985).

See Pawlowske v. Chrysler Corp., 623 F. Supp. 569 (N.D. Ill. 1985).

See Craig v. Lowe, 96-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,416 (N.D. Calif. 1996).

See Maisano v. Welcher, 940 F.2d 499 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied sub nom. Maisano v. IRS, 504 U.S. 916, 112 S. Ct. 1957 (1992) (Court ruled that no court order is required for a valid IRS seizure under section 6331, and that the power of IRS seizure under section 6331 is not limited to salaries of federal government personnel, etc).

Since at least 1867, the Federal tax collector has also held the power to sell property of a delinquent taxpayer to satisfy a Federal income tax liability, even before physically ejecting the taxpayer from the property. See the United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881) (date is often listed as "1880"; decision was actually rendered in January 1881).

The Congress has enacted various provisions in the Internal Revenue Code from time to time, to provide a requirement for court approval of certain kinds of levies (such as certain seizures of the taxpayer’s principal residence), as well as certain limitations on the amounts that may be levied, and certain items exempt from levy (such as wearing apparel, school books, furniture, personal effects, tools of trade, judgments for support of minor children, etc.). But those provisions are matters of legislative grace.

EDIT: Example, from James v. United States, 970 F.2d 750, 755, n. 9 (10th Cir. 1992), cited above:

Plaintiffs also assert that the levy was invalid under 26 U.S.C. § 6331(a) because Mr. James was not an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States or the District of Columbia, or of any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs' argument is frivolous. Section 6331(a) empowers the IRS to levy the property of all taxpayers. See Sims v. United States, 359 U.S. 108, 112-13, 79 S.Ct. 641, 644-45, 3 L.Ed.2d 667 (1959)....

Oh, boo-hoo!

[NYGman]

Even more to the point is the fact that there have been a number of court cases (some of which have been posted on Quatloos as examples) where the tax protester failed making that argument. PD will never be able to show that the argument has prevailed and been upheld by other courts.

You are forgetting about all those super secret legal cases where the FMOTL always wins. However, TPTB know the power of these cases, and prevent their publication. That way, they can prevent others finding out the magic words to use, in order to win.

[Cpt Banjo]

That way, they can prevent others finding out the magic words to use, in order to win.

Klaatu barada nikto?

Razbanyi siati benefuchi?

Bibbidy bobbidy boo?

Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius?

Yabba dabba doo?

Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin?

[Burnaby49]

That way, they can prevent others finding out the magic words to use, in order to win.

Klaatu barada nikto?

Razbanyi siati benefuchi?

Bibbidy bobbidy boo?

Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius?

Yabba dabba doo?

Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin?

Call this a list? You left out Guabi Guabi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVcV38R7oxM

[Dr. Caligari]

No, the magic words are "gey kokken offen yahm."

[Cpt Banjo]

You left out Guabi Guabi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVcV38R7oxM

I first heard that tune done by Jim Kweskin and Fritz Richmond about 40 years ago. Fritz is no longer with us, but here's Kweskin and Geoff Muldaur doing it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUeuj41dXF4

[Burnaby49]

You left out Guabi Guabi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVcV38R7oxM

I first heard that tune done by Jim Kweskin and Fritz Richmond about 40 years ago. Fritz is no longer with us, but here's Kweskin and Geoff Muldaur doing it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUeuj41dXF4

Great guitar work but, in my opinion, no version that I've heard equals that of Arlo in Amigos. He puts his heart into it.

[grixit]

Et In Arcadia Ego

Abracadabra

Open Sesame

Joe sent me

There is nothing more useless than a lock with a voice print

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

42

Ooo eee,ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang
Ooo eee ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla bing bang...

[wserra]

Honi soit la vache qui rit.

[The Observer]

You are all wrong:

Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul,
Ash nazg thrakatulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul

But you need to be near an active volcano vent when you recite it.

[Arthur Rubin]

You are all wrong:

Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul,
Ash nazg thrakatulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul

But you need to be near an active volcano vent when you recite it.

I thought that required some mythical beings, such as a virgin.

[The Observer]

You are all wrong:

Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul,
Ash nazg thrakatulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul

But you need to be near an active volcano vent when you recite it.

I thought that required some mythical beings, such as a virgin.

I don't recall Sauron using a virgin.