Deceptive IRS spoof on NFTL

[David Merrill]

The Payoff speaks for itself.



Enjoy.


Since you and "." are just ranting in an attempt to anger me, I will probably just ignore you unless you say something worthwhile that catches my attention.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

I think it safe to say that The Observer and "." are simply blabbering on in denial.

The part that someone has marked "Read Carefully" (if "someone" is Van Pelt: Physician, heal thyself):

With respect to each assessment below, unless notice of lien is refiled by the date in column (e), this notice shall constitute the certificate of release of lien as defined in IRC 6325(a).

Now, it seems perfectly clear that Van Pelt missed the day in first grade when the teacher explained the meaning of the word "unless". It's safe to say that, unless Van Pelt eats and drinks between now and then, he will be dead by Independence Day. Now, to poor David, this must mean that he should start preparing his will, because he isn't long for this world.

Wesley Marc however, being a trained attorney knows how to use, and here, misconstruct the English language.

Let's try a simplification:

Unless you give me $100, this notice shall constitute the certificate of release of lien as defined in IRC 6325(a).

That simply means I would give the IRS agent $100 if I for whatever reason did not want the notice to constitute a release of lien.

The example Wserra gave is simply a brain fart; about me starving to death. If you can make sense of his logic, you better consult with an attorney. Or better yet, get a book of attorney jokes. All the answers are in there.

What do you have with 100 attorneys at the bottom of the sea?

Answer: A good start.

The NFTL says:

IMPORTANT RELEASE INFORMATION: For each assessment listed below, unless notice of lien is refiled by the date given in column (e), this notice shall, on the day following such date, operate as a certificate of release as defined in IRC 6325(a).

and the Release of Lien says:

With respect to each assessment below, unless notice of lien is refiled by the date in column (e), this notice shall constitute the certificate of release of lien as defined in IRC 6325(a).

Changing operate as to shall constitute proves that it is no typo.

Moving this thread to Ranting and Raving slows thing down as far a Views, but that is too little too late. Wesley is too smart to come back to defend such obvious sophistry and Judge Roy Bean, who actually brought on my truth fit by attempting to form an injunction that David Merrill no longer gets to post links to evidence like:



seems a little shy to address my assertions about the fax verbiage.

Then there is Prof, who has said nothing at all - except that my ability to post a Signature has been switched off. So for you all who enjoy special sanctions on specific members here...

Keep in mind that filing of a tax lien is merely a perfection step, and has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the lien against the owner taxpayer. -Prof 5/29/07

Just remember that you think you enjoy shooting yourselves in the foot nowhere near as much as you actually do.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[The Observer]

The only blabbering has been you - and blabbering on hearsay, . You have posted a document, a facsimile no less, that is not an offiicial recording document with handwriting on it. Then you try to tell us that this is a legal document and should act upon its verbiage.

What is more revealing is your failure to go to the county recorder's office and look for the official recorded notice of federal tax lien for your "suitor". Your intellectual dishonesty knows no boundaries. You have already admitted that the official lien form has the verbiage that explains that the release of the lien will not occur until the dates specified - that negates your claim that the lien has been released by your interpretation of the facsimile. But that would also mean your little fantasy would be over. Hence, your intellectual dishonesty.

[David Merrill]

The only blabbering has been you - and blabbering on hearsay, . You have posted a document, a facsimile no less, that is not an offiicial recording document with handwriting on it. Then you try to tell us that this is a legal document and should act upon its verbiage.

What is more revealing is your failure to go to the county recorder's office and look for the official recorded notice of federal tax lien for your "suitor". Your intellectual dishonesty knows no boundaries. You have already admitted that the official lien form has the verbiage that explains that the release of the lien will not occur until the dates specified - that negates your claim that the lien has been released by your interpretation of the facsimile. But that would also mean your little fantasy would be over. Hence, your intellectual dishonesty.

You are incorrect. I was speaking with the suitor who showed me the fax the broker gave him in a meeting. That is not hearsay.

You have already admitted that the official lien form has the verbiage that explains that the release of the lien will not occur until the dates specified - that negates your claim that the lien has been released by your interpretation of the facsimile.

Here is what is written:

The NFTL says:

IMPORTANT RELEASE INFORMATION: For each assessment listed below, unless notice of lien is refiled by the date given in column (e), this notice shall, on the day following such date, operate as a certificate of release as defined in IRC 6325(a).

and the Release of Lien says:

With respect to each assessment below, unless notice of lien is refiled by the date in column (e), this notice shall constitute the certificate of release of lien as defined in IRC 6325(a).

The fax told the broker that this notice shall constitute the certificate of release of lien...

Something about you saying I am intellectually dishonest while you distort truth in such obvious ways keeps me fascinated. I cannot resist responding and correcting you. What's with that?


Regards,

David Merrill.

[The Observer]

Sorry, David, but until you produce the copy of the certified document in the recorder's office, you have nothing but what the suitor is telling you. And you telling us what the suitor said is hearsay. Simple as that.

[silversopp]

Van Pelt,

You're not grasping that sentence at all.

"With respect to each assessment below..."

We agree on this part

"...unless notice of lien is refiled by the date in column (e)"

We'll substitute:

"unless notice of lien is refiled by 11/22/2010"

That means that if the lien is not refiled by 11/22/2010, something will happen. In other words, some event will happen in the future unless the lien is refiled.

"...this notice shall constitute the certificate of release of lien as defined in IRC 6325(a)."

This is what will happen, in the future, if the lien is not refiled by 11/22/2010. In other words, this does not happen before 11/22/2010.

We'll try another one:

"Unless you give me $100 by 4PM, I shall paint your motor scooter hot pink"

Your motor scooter is not hot pink the moment you get this message. Nor is it painted hot pink at Noon. It will be painted hot pink at 4PM provided you did not give me $100.

[David Merrill]

Van Pelt,

You're not grasping that sentence at all.

"With respect to each assessment below..."

We agree on this part

"...unless notice of lien is refiled by the date in column (e)"

We'll substitute:

"unless notice of lien is refiled by 11/22/2010"

That means that if the lien is not refiled by 11/22/2010, something will happen. In other words, some event will happen in the future unless the lien is refiled.

"...this notice shall constitute the certificate of release of lien as defined in IRC 6325(a)."

This is what will happen, in the future, if the lien is not refiled by 11/22/2010. In other words, this does not happen before 11/22/2010.

We'll try another one:

"Unless you give me $100 by 4PM, I shall paint your motor scooter hot pink"

Your motor scooter is not hot pink the moment you get this message. Nor is it painted hot pink at Noon. It will be painted hot pink at 4PM provided you did not give me $100.

I am a little confounded that you persist in saying the two descriptions are saying the same thing. They say the opposite. One says that the day after the date in column (c), the notice will operate as release of lien:

IMPORTANT RELEASE INFORMATION: For each assessment listed below, unless notice of lien is refiled by the date given in column (e), this notice shall, on the day following such date, operate as a certificate of release as defined in IRC 6325(a).

And the fax to the broker is saying that unless something happens in the interim, the notice shall constitute release of lien.

With respect to each assessment below, unless notice of lien is refiled by the date in column (e), this notice shall constitute the certificate of release of lien as defined in IRC 6325(a).

What scares me is how much I enjoy correcting you over and over again about that.

Sorry, David, but until you produce the copy of the certified document in the recorder's office, you have nothing but what the suitor is telling you. And you telling us what the suitor said is hearsay. Simple as that.

You were saying that I was going on hearsay when I corrected you. I think what you are going on is more like, Internet Yarn, as I have said.




Regards,

David Merrill.

[silversopp]

Van Pelt, you quoted my comments but failed to respond to the content.

I have never claimed that the two descriptions are saying the same thing. I am only dealing with the wording of the fax that you received. The proper reading of that sentence indicates that the notice will serve as release of lien at some point in the future (11/22/2010).

The fax says unless something happens BY a specific date, then it will become the release of lien.

You've never corrected me.

I never claimed you were going on hearsay.

Unless you do X by Y, then Z will happen.

Z does not happen until after Y, providing X has not been done.

[David Merrill]

Van Pelt, you quoted my comments but failed to respond to the content.

I have never claimed that the two descriptions are saying the same thing. I am only dealing with the wording of the fax that you received. The proper reading of that sentence indicates that the notice will serve as release of lien at some point in the future (11/22/2010).

The fax says unless something happens BY a specific date, then it will become the release of lien.

You've never corrected me.

I never claimed you were going on hearsay.

Unless you do X by Y, then Z will happen.

Z does not happen until after Y, providing X has not been done.

Yes. I did not mix you up with The Observer, Silversopp. You have it right. The IRS agent faxed a release of lien. - Unless of course the broker was notified that there had been a refiling.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[The Observer]

You were saying that I was going on hearsay when I corrected you. I think what you are going on is more like, Internet Yarn, as I have said.

And until you provide proof of what was recorded at the county recorder's office, all you have is your fervent wish that the suitor was telling you the truth. But you keep making lame excuses why you can't verify the truth of the matter and get very touchy when asked to provide something simple as a copy of a document with the recorder's stamp. The readers are noticing this - I suspect that they may be getting the idea that you are very hesitant to go looking for the truth.

[silversopp]

Yes. I did not mix you up with The Observer, Silversopp. You have it right. The IRS agent faxed a release of lien. - Unless of course the broker was notified that there had been a refiling.

When you read something that follows this:
Unless X happens by Y, Z will happen.
It means:
Z does not happen until Y, if X does not happen.

In the example used in the fax, because the date is not after 11/22/2010, there is no release of lien.

I notice that once again, you had an opportunity to rebut my example of the proper method of interpreting a basic English sentence, and once again, you decided to avoid it. I guess getting PWNED regarding lawful money (see signature) has made you be a little sheepish around here.

I'd love to tack on another PWNing in my signature David...

Silver "the Van Pelt slayer" Sopp

P.S.

Oh...by the way, I've received a private message from a lurker thanking me for pointing out your flaws and showing that you don't know squat. Those "hundreds" of readers you have supporting you has just decreased by one. I'm sure many more will following.

[David Merrill]

You were saying that I was going on hearsay when I corrected you. I think what you are going on is more like, Internet Yarn, as I have said.

And until you provide proof of what was recorded at the county recorder's office, all you have is your fervent wish that the suitor was telling you the truth. But you keep making lame excuses why you can't verify the truth of the matter and get very touchy when asked to provide something simple as a copy of a document with the recorder's stamp. The readers are noticing this - I suspect that they may be getting the idea that you are very hesitant to go looking for the truth.

I got the truth.

When you read something that follows this:

Unless X happens by Y, Z will happen.

It means:
Z does not happen until Y, if X does not happen.

That does not apply to the verbiage in the fax. Try this:

Unless X happens, this notice is a release.

You may have missed it but the fax does not say anything about - on the day following the date in column (c). There is no mention of by Y, like you say.

Look for yourself:





See for yourself.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Quixote]

With all the discussion about Van Pelt's faked document, no one seems to have mentioned a bigger problem with Van Pelt's story. Maybe I lack imagination, but I can't think of any circumstances under which a broker, by which I assume Van Pelt means a securities dealer, would need or want to see a NFTL. Van Pelt says an IRS agent, by which I assume he means a revenue officer, was "pestering [the broker] about a federal tax lien". Why would an RO pester a broker? If there were assets in the account, the RO would levy on them. If not, why worry about whether or not the broker knows about the lien?

[David Merrill]

With all the discussion about Van Pelt's faked document, no one seems to have mentioned a bigger problem with Van Pelt's story. Maybe I lack imagination, but I can't think of any circumstances under which a broker, by which I assume Van Pelt means a securities dealer, would need or want to see a NFTL. Van Pelt says an IRS agent, by which I assume he means a revenue officer, was "pestering [the broker] about a federal tax lien". Why would an RO pester a broker? If there were assets in the account, the RO would levy on them. If not, why worry about whether or not the broker knows about the lien?

Because tax liens do not arise as a matter of law; unless you consider that they, as both Judge Roy Bean and Prof have clearly admitted - arise through filing.

http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0042-660 ... 0.CO%3B2-T



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. I once had a Signature...

Keep in mind that filing of a tax lien is merely a perfection step, and has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the lien against the owner taxpayer. -Prof 5/29/07

[silversopp]

That does not apply to the verbiage in the fax. Try this:

Unless X happens, this notice is a release.

David Van Pelt, there are three tenses in the English language: past, present, and future. The language is clearly in the future tense (the word "shall" indicates that). Please use an example that follows the structure of the faxed document instead of coming up with a different structure. We need to compare apples to apples.

There is no mention of by Y, like you say.

"unless notice of lien is refiled by the date in column (e)"

Date in column (e) = Y

Another swing and a miss by Van Pelt. Keep on coming back Van Pelt, some may call me sick, but I love PWNing arrogant fools. What else you got David that I can wipe you around the floor with? I've got you cornered with no way out again. Squirm my dumb pathetic little hamster, and if you're good, maybe I'll let you run around and around in the wheel for my own amusement.

[Nikki]

Ease off. David is mentally ill.

[Nikki]

You attack him with style and grace as befitting your position and his infirmity.

Some of the others are getting too crude and impolite.

[David Merrill]

That does not apply to the verbiage in the fax. Try this:

Unless X happens, this notice is a release.

David Van Pelt, there are three tenses in the English language: past, present, and future. The language is clearly in the future tense (the word "shall" indicates that). Please use an example that follows the structure of the faxed document instead of coming up with a different structure. We need to compare apples to apples.

There is no mention of by Y, like you say.

"unless notice of lien is refiled by the date in column (e)"

Date in column (e) = Y

Another swing and a miss by Van Pelt. Keep on coming back Van Pelt, some may call me sick, but I love PWNing arrogant fools. What else you got David that I can wipe you around the floor with? I've got you cornered with no way out again. Squirm my dumb pathetic little hamster, and if you're good, maybe I'll let you run around and around in the wheel for my own amusement.

You are pretty sick alright.

Anyway let's try it again since I enjoy correcting you all on this so much:


You are saying that the NFTL and the fax say the same thing?

The NFTL says:

IMPORTANT RELEASE INFORMATION: For each assessment listed below, unless notice of lien is refiled by the date given in column (e), this notice shall, on the day following such date, operate as a certificate of release as defined in IRC 6325(a).

and the Release of Lien says:

With respect to each assessment below, unless notice of lien is refiled by the date in column (e), this notice shall constitute the certificate of release of lien as defined in IRC 6325(a).

What you seem to be telling me that when the clause about the future, that the notice will operate as a certificate of release, - that when the clause about the day after the date in column (e) is removed from the notice it means the same thing as when it is there.

I think you missed the mark by claiming I am incorrect. Especially when you try using an argument about past, present and future tense in the English language.

That is where you screwed up with your algebra about X, Y and Z...



Regards,

David Merrill.

[webhick]

I've got you cornered with no way out again. Squirm my dumb pathetic little hamster, and if you're good, maybe I'll let you run around and around in the wheel for my own amusement.

Now I know where I know you from! You submitted the R&D report last month from Corridor D, right? Man, we loved that report. Especially the part where you took the Russian Dwarf Chicken-Gator and cross-bred with the Woolly Crab-Lizard of Antarctica. Dude, I laughed so hard coffee came out my nose. And two interns imploded. Go figure.

[The Observer]

With all the discussion about Van Pelt's faked document, no one seems to have mentioned a bigger problem with Van Pelt's story. Maybe I lack imagination, but I can't think of any circumstances under which a broker, by which I assume Van Pelt means a securities dealer, would need or want to see a NFTL. Van Pelt says an IRS agent, by which I assume he means a revenue officer, was "pestering [the broker] about a federal tax lien". Why would an RO pester a broker? If there were assets in the account, the RO would levy on them. If not, why worry about whether or not the broker knows about the lien?

The story is fishy, no matter how you look at it. Supposedly the broker returned the funds, but to look at David's misbegotten link, you can't see anything that proves that. The only communication supposedly provided by the broker just addresses the vague reason why the brokerage will not be complying with the summons that was served on them. I did't bother bringing this up earlier, in fear that David would start another rambling discourse explaining how summonses are really levies or some similar nonsense.

You are right, there would have been no reason for the broker to ask about the existence of a NFTL. The notice of levy served on the brokerage would have been notice that a lien had arisen and that the IRS had indeed attached the "suitor's" account. I have told David before that there is no requirement that the IRS record a NFTL prior to issuing a levy and that they do this on a regular basis. Revenue officers usually record notices as a routine part of their collection activity, so that is apparently why a NFTL existed.

After that, what really happened is anyone's guess. But tossing David's obfuscations and ramblings aside, apparently somehow the "suitor" got hold of the electronic lien facsimile and then ran to the broker's to convince him that the facsimile was a "release." What happened after that is unknown. David has thrown in a state payoff document, which has no relevance to the federal tax lien and some scanned book which I couldn't read due to the small print.

None of the above tells us what happened afterwards if the broker failed to honor the levy. And since David is pouting, due to me having the bad manners to actually call him out and demand that he start providing some actual evidence of what is on record, I doubt we will really know what happened. But I don't think the IRS would have rolled over and allowed the brokerage to ignore the levy. The revenue officer could have served a final demand to the brokerage and advised them of the penalty/damages for failing to honor a levy. On the other hand, the account could have had minimal amounts in there, not making it worthwhile for the IRS to pursue.

Because tax liens do not arise as a matter of law...

Yes, they do. IRC 6321. Stop twisting what Prof and JRB said. They were addressing the requirement under the UCC in order for a lien to establish priority over other creditors by providing a notice of lien at public locations. You need to think carefully about the intellectual dishonesty you keep practicing. That is probably the reason why you lost your signature.