His Quash Gets Squashed

[Gregg]

Let me expand on that a little.
I am a museum junkie, and I happen to have a home in Gettysburg. In Gettysburg there are a few "museums" that are obvious tourist traps, with cheap paper mechete' exhibits, reminds me very much of the stuff you see in roadside attractions, pretty much what they are. Then there is the Visitors Center at the park, which is on par with the Smithsonian, the Air Force Museum etc... a prime quality museum that you usually only see in ones with significant government funding (one of the few things the government does well) I expected the Cairo Museum to be better than the "Hall of Presidents and First Ladies" on Baltimore Street. It's not.

[LPC]

Question Presented: Is there a difference between "The United States of America" and "United States of America"?

It's been at least 4 or 5 years now, and Maxwell is still trying to fight IRS summonses.

This time, the IRS issued a summons to his bank, and instead of petitioning to quash in his home state (Tennessee) or the home of his bank (Minnesota), Maxwell petitioned in the DC district, where the bank has no offices.

After finding that the petition was not timely, and was filed in the wrong district, so that the court had no jurisdiction, the court went on to comment on the merits of the petition:

Even if this Court had appropriate jurisdiction, Maxwell's petition to quash the IRS summons at issue would fail. Maxwell makes a number of challenges to the IRS summons issued to his bank, U.S. Bank, N.A. He alleges that the summons: (1) does not properly identify him as the party to be investigated; (2) does not identify the party authorized to issue it; and (3) is unauthorized as a matter of law. Pet. ¶¶ 14-17. Each of these arguments, similar to ones previously dismissed by the Tennessee federal court, is without merit. See Maxwell v. IRS, No. 3:08-MC-0113, 2009 WL 920533, at *5 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 1, 2009).

First, Maxwell asserts that he is not a citizen of the United States and has no "lawfully assigned" Social Security number. Pet. ¶¶ 3, 6-7, 11. He claims the summons identifies "y a number . . . another other than [him]," presumably since he has claimed to have renounced his Social Security number. See Pet. ¶ 14; Maxwell, 2009 WL 920533, at *2. However, the summons can relate only to Maxwell's taxes, as it states it is "n the matter of Charles Philip Maxwell" and gives Maxwell's Social Security number. Maxwell, 2009 WL 920533, at *2; Pet. at 6.

Second, Maxwell argues that the summons does not identify its authorized source. Pet. ¶ 15. Yet the summons issued to U.S. Bank, N.A. bears the IRS seal next to the word "Summons" in large, bold type; the document also indicates that it is from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and is signed by Agent Schultz. Pet. at 6; see also Maxwell, 2009 WL 920533, at *1.

Third, Maxwell claims that there is no law or duty mandating that he is liable to pay an individual income tax, so he is not subject to inquiry by officers or employees of the Treasury Department pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7601(a). Pet. ¶¶ 16-17. But "the Supreme Court has recognized that the [S]ixteenth [A]mendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation" and "efforts to argue otherwise have been sanctioned as frivolous." United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990) (citing Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19 (1916)).

Maxwell's claim that the United States is not sovereign over him derives from a distinction between "United States of America" and "The United States of America." See Pet'r's Resp. at 1, 3. In effect, he claims that the former issued the summons, but he has pledged allegiance only to the latter, concluding therefore that the summons has no effect on his records and the IRC does not apply to him. Pet'r's Resp. at 3. This argument is misguided, at the very least. Maxwell, as a citizen residing in the United States, is subject to federal law. Courts regularly reject arguments that one is a citizen of a state (in petitioner's case, Tennessee) and therefore not of the United States. See Maxwell, 2009 WL 920533, at *2 (citing Upton v. IRS, 104 F.3d 543, 545 (2d Cir. 1997); United States v. Hilgeford, 7 F.3d 1340, 1342 (7th Cir. 1993); United States v. Jagim, 978 F.2d 1032, 1036 (8th Cir. 1992)).

As Judge Echols of the Middle District of Tennessee has explained, the IRS's authority to issue summons in a tax investigation is denoted in 26 U.S.C. § 7602(a)(2):

For the purpose of ascertaining the correctness of any return, making a return where none has been made, determining the liability of any person for any internal revenue tax or the liability . . . or collecting any such liability, the Secretary is authorized . . . [t]o summon . . . any other person the Secretary may deem proper, to appear . . . and to produce such books, papers, records, or other data . . . as may be relevant or material to such inquiry.

Maxwell, 2009 WL 920533, at *3. Accordingly, Maxwell's request that the Court report to the Attorney General that Agent Schultz has committed a felony under 42 U.S.C. § 408 by issuing the summons to his bank, see Pet. ¶ 18, does not withstand scrutiny. Finally, Maxwell's other claims similarly rely on misapplication of legal rules and documents. He misinterprets the concept of self-determination, which, as highlighted by its appearance in a document submitted to the United Nations, see Pet'r's Resp. at 3-4, applies to international relations and not to the relations of the U.S. government with its own people. Maxwell, who obtains the same benefits from living in this country as does any other citizen, cannot choose not to have legal relations with the government; that would lead to anarchy, which is certainly not what the Declaration of Independence (to which he allegedly does subscribe, see Pet'r's Resp. at 3-4) envisions.

Petition is denied, and dismissed.

Charles Maxwell v. United States, No. 11-684 (USDC DC 7/3/2012).