Hendrickson follower has Soc. Sec. benefits levied

[Famspear]

At losthorizons dot com, user "smudge" writes:

My Social Security Benefit payments, for over a year now, are being levied at around 57%. Section 1024(2)(h)(1) of PL105-24 [Note: His citation is garbled; he really means subsection (a) of section 1024 of Public Law No. 105-34 (not 105-24), which amended section 6331 of the Internal Revenue Code back in August of 1997 by adding what is now subsection (h)] clearly states that the IRS is only authorized to levy up to 15% of my monthly Social Security Benefit payments.

Actually, that's not precisely what the law states; more on that below.

Later, "smudge" writes:

Received the reply to my question from:

Bill Banowsky
Director, Campus Compliance Operations
Ogden Small Business/Self-Employed Division [of the Internal Revenue Service]

(I'm only quoting the relevant parts of his reply)

"You asked about the percentage the IRS is authorized to deduct from your social security benefits."

[ . . . ]

"There is no similar restriction on how much the IRS can receive from manual levies. A manual levy was completed on July 27, 2010, raising your payment to $1,189.20"

[ . . . .]

Any suggestions anyone?

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2863

"Smudge" then continues his commentary at a web site called codebusters dot com, where several current and former CtC regulars have been posting over the past few months:

[ . . . ] IRM 5.11.7.2.7 [a citation to a provision of the IRS Internal Revenue Manual] doesn't apply in this situation, because the "Manual Levy" and FPLP [the Federal Payment Levy Program] were not running concurrently, however, during the period of time i was "enrolled" in the FPLP and 15% of my monthly Social Security benefit payment was being diverted to the IRS, the remaining 85% was directly deposited in my bank account. One of Mr. Shulmans [sic] employees [meaning an IRS employee; Douglas H. Shulman is the Commissioner of Internal Revenue] at the Fresno Campus [the IRS Fresno facility] did send a "Notice of Levy" to my bank and had the remaining 85% of my benefit sent to the IRS. I intend to write another letter to Mr. Schulman [sic] requesting the return of my property, they will probably reply that the statute of limitations has expired, but at least i will be on record. I also have a few questions for Mr. Banowsky [the IRS employee mentioned earlier]. Who un-enrolled me from the FPLP and what was their criteria, what is a "manual levy", who authorized it and what criteria did they use to determine the ammount [sic] to levy, what law did they go by, if not a law, what portion of Title 26 did they rely on to over-ride the applicable section of P.L. 105-34, and request a copy of the "manual levy".

http://www.codebusters.org/post739.html#p739

It appears, at any rate, that "smudge" is confused about (A) what an ordinary manual levy is, and (B) the difference between an ordinary levy and a "continuous levy." Ordinary manual levies are governed generally by subsection (a) of Internal Revenue Code section 6331. For an ordinary manual levy, subsection (a) provides no restriction on the percentage of a taxpayer's Social Security benefits that can be seized or distrained.

By contrast, for a "continuous levy" under subsection (h) (such as an FPLP levy, which is an automated levy) there is a statutory maximum percentage of Social Security benefits that can be seized or distrained: 15%.

See also IRS Publication 4418, "What You Need to Know: The Federal Payment Levy Program as it applies to your Social Security Benefits" (Rev. March 2008).

As a side note: legal scholar Weston White contributes this pearl in the same thread at codebusters dot com:

Oh and to touch on my own predicament[,] the IRS is garnishing me (so perhaps you will not have to feel so bad, hehe), not for one, but for two charges from TY-2007 (even though there are absolutely zero records concerning any of the other charges), and every new tax year I am mailed a brand new charge for TY-2007 in addition to a new charge for that current tax year. And as additional icing on the preverbal [sic] cake the IRS had started its garnishment against me about two-weeks after the statute of limitations for TY-2007 penalties had expired. To date all of my correspondence has been entirely ignored by the IRS, they will not give me the time of day.

I see Weston's magnificent legal prowess is the same as it has always been.....

[Number Six]

As a side note: legal scholar Weston White contributes this pearl in the same thread at codebusters dot com:

Oh and to touch on my own predicament[,] the IRS is garnishing me (so perhaps you will not have to feel so bad, hehe), not for one, but for two charges from TY-2007 (even though there are absolutely zero records concerning any of the other charges), and every new tax year I am mailed a brand new charge for TY-2007 in addition to a new charge for that current tax year. And as additional icing on the preverbal [sic] cake the IRS had started its garnishment against me about two-weeks after the statute of limitations for TY-2007 penalties had expired. To date all of my correspondence has been entirely ignored by the IRS, they will not give me the time of day.

I see Weston's magnificent legal prowess is the same as it has always been.....

Can't say we didn't warn Weston...

[Famspear]

.....And as additional icing on the preverbal [sic] cake the IRS had started its garnishment against me about two-weeks after the statute of limitations for TY-2007 penalties had expired......

If Weston is talking about the section 6501 statutory period in which the IRS must make an assessment after a return is filed (and the general rule is three years), it's theoretically possible that Weston could be right -- but I seriously doubt that he is.

[grixit]

So has anyone there posted the information that the folks of Hendrickson's own website still haven't heard?

[The Observer]

.....And as additional icing on the preverbal [sic] cake the IRS had started its garnishment against me about two-weeks after the statute of limitations for TY-2007 penalties had expired......

If Weston is talking about the section 6501 statutory period in which the IRS must make an assessment after a return is filed (and the general rule is three years), it's theoretically possible that Weston could be right -- but I seriously doubt that he is.

I doubt that he is right, either. This is probably a case where he is so wrong he's not even wrong. The assessment statute has nothing to do with the collection statute (IRS has 10 years from date of assessment, generally, to collect the unpaid taxes, penalties and interest). So why he is bringing up IRC 6501 in regards to his garnishment? I guess Weston will pound that dead horse for the next 6 to ten years, depending on when he actually filed that return. If he filed it on 4/15/2008, then at a minimum, there is still roughly 6 years or so to go.

"But wait a minute," I can hear Famspear exclaiming, "what if it was a CtC-based return and Weston claimed zero taxes due? We can always count on weaksauce Westie to go the wrong way!" So if the IRS didn't get around to getting Mr. White's return corrected for couple of years or so, then that collection statute date might be even further down the road. The IRS might be dogging ol' Wes into 2020 or so! What a brilliant decision on Weston's part, maneuvering himself into a continuous wage levy for the next 8 years, give or take a year! Way to go, Wes! And what if the IRS filed a notice of federal tax lien? Wow, even more unnecessary misery Wes has bargained for! Bad credit rating, hard to get loans, have to pay higher interest rates. Man, oh man, the life of a CtC Warrior! You never know what those crazy guys are going to come up with next.

Gosh, someone at this point might be pointing out that Westie might have decided to do battle in court over these unfair and incorrect additions to his tax. Well, golly gee, if he did do that, then he just suspended the collection statute for the length of his appeal or litigation. And heck, under the right circumstances he might have added 6 more months to the collection statute; Think of that - another 6 months of potential wage levies! Woohooo!

And what if Weston decides to throw himself on the mercy of the government and ask that his tax liabilities be discharged in bankruptcy? That might work (it will get the wage levy lifted during the course of the bankruptcy), unless of course White has decent income. In which event that mean old BK Chapter 7 judge will tell White he doesn't qualify and he will have to convert to a Chapter 13 plan and start paying towards the back taxes under a confirmed plan!

No matter what Westie does, he ends up paying taxes. It's just not fair! CtC wasn't supposed to be like this! How could such a perfect plan go so horribly wrong? After all, this was a Pete Hendrickson Production! Nothing ever goes wrong for Pete, right? Right?

Maybe Weston White could drive up to where Pete is incarcerated and ask him to show what Weston did wrong to end up in such a big hole.

[Famspear]

....So why he [Weston White] is bringing up IRC 6501 in regards to his garnishment?...

Actually, unless I missed it, Weston did not mention section 6501, nor did he say whether he was talking about the assessment statute (6501) or the collection statute (6502). I just mentioned 6501 to give him the benefit of the doubt, since that's the only one of the two statutes that makes logical sense in the context of his 2007 tax return at this point.

[jg]

TranscriptsDontLie
Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 1:29 pm Post subject: ILLEGAL DUAL LEVY (15% on SS-Beni plus Paper Levy)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Against my resolve to NOT post here anymore, I feel compelled to point out to you the following IRM-mandate (emphasis mine):

IRM 5.11.7.2 Federal Payment Levy Program

5.11.7.2.7 (08-12-2011)
Returning FPLP Levy Proceeds
...
4. In situations where a paper levy and FPLP levy attached the same federal payment simultaneously (known as a 'double levy') and both levies' proceeds from the same pay date are posted on the account, then the paper levy proceeds will need to be returned in accordance with IRM 5.11.2.3. Both levies should not be in effect on the same payment, where 15% of the payment was attached by the FPLP and the paper levy attaches the remaining amount (or however the federal payment agency calculated the payment to satisfy both the levies). Since the paper levy should not have been issued because the FPLP is indicated on the account, then the paper levy proceeds need to be refunded, as the administrative procedures were not followed to prevent simultaneous or 'double' levies. In certain situations, the FPLP levy proceeds may be returned in lieu of the paper levy proceeds, particularly if the FPLP is removed (released or blocked) from the account, and the paper levy is attaching the federal payment.
5. ...

So you can see, that RO has patently lied to you, and should be strung up by his c****s! How could he POSSIBLY say what he did? I'd really like to see scans of both docs, your demand for answers and his written response, and list him on our WallOfShame. Based on the IRM's mandate alone, he should have intervened immediately (per 31 CFR Sec. 0.208 et seq.) rather than kick it over to the TAS. Once you start reading over that IRM's other provisions, you'll see that all that double-levy $$$ must be returned to you, and cannot be offset against any other, collateral deficiencies.

Apparently transcripts dont lie but TranscriptsDontLie does.

Or, TDL (who seems to try to baffle with BS) could not understand the plain language "In situations where a paper levy and FPLP levy attached the same federal payment simultaneously (known as a 'double levy') and both levies' proceeds from the same pay date are posted on the account, then the paper levy proceeds will need to be returned" which does not speak to issue that manual levy is possible. Actually, the situation described does imply that either is possible when it speaks of the remedy when both have been applied simultaneously.

Later the statememt is made "...particularly if the FPLP is removed (released or blocked) from the account, and the paper levy is attaching the federal payment." that is consistent with the letter smudge got saying that a manual levy can be applied.

Reading is fundamental.

[wserra]

As a side note: legal scholar Weston White contributes this pearl in the same thread at codebusters dot com:

as additional icing on the preverbal [sic] cake

What's with the "sic"? The adjective "preverbal" is perfectly appropriate when used in relation to a Weston White post. He even spelled it correctly.

[The Observer]

Actually, unless I missed it, Weston did not mention section 6501, nor did he say whether he was talking about the assessment statute (6501) or the collection statute (6502). I just mentioned 6501 to give him the benefit of the doubt, since that's the only one of the two statutes that makes logical sense in the context of his 2007 tax return at this point.

Yes, but if Weston is bringing up the assessment statute in relation to his levy, even though he might be correct about the statute expiration, it is really a non sequitur comment. One has nothing to do with the other - just like Weston and logic have nothing to do with each other.

[The Observer]

What's with the "sic"? The adjective "preverbal" is perfectly appropriate when used in relation to a Weston White post. He even spelled it correctly.

Yes, but he said the cake was preverbal. If he had said it about himself, then he would have been correct. I suspect a cake is capable of being much more verbal than Weston is.

[webhick]

What's with the "sic"? The adjective "preverbal" is perfectly appropriate when used in relation to a Weston White post. He even spelled it correctly.

Yes, but he said the cake was preverbal. If he had said it about himself, then he would have been correct. I suspect a cake is capable of being much more verbal than Weston is.

Clearly, Weston White's cake talks to him.

ETA: Now I want to go home, bake a cake, write "Happy Garnishment, Dumbass!" on it, take a picture and post it here.

Naw, too much work. If I have the lettering gel, I might be able to fit it on the left-over cake from Hannaford.

[grixit]

That must be it: all those pseudo legal tactics were written in the frosting. Don't fall for it, Weston, the cake is a lie!

[Famspear]

Here are some cheery Christmas Eve thoughts from Weston White, in response to another wackadooster's comments about treatment from the Internal Revenue Service:

I have been receiving the near same treatment myself, I think their ACS [the IRS Automated Collection Service unit] has finally broken itself. Sending out notices either a week or two postdated or dated too far in the past --either way that would attribute mail fraud, being that these are intended to serve as official notices and the administration of law.

And heck, just a few months back within a period of two-weeks I was flooded with about twelve IRS letters/notices, several required me to make trips to the USPS [United States Postal Service] to sign for. And once, while there the postal worker happened upon another IRS letter for me to sign for that my letter carrier had failed to leave a pink card in my mailbox, apparently that one had been sitting there for almost two weeks before it was given to me, and that was just by pure chance.

Also, it just gets better, even though the IRS has already actually garnished my wages for TY-2007 and TY-2008, they are now coming after me again for TY-2008, from scratch. And for TY-2009, they are double-imposing me for that year, with the impositions being only 1-month from one another.

But no matter, everything about these letters and notices is entirely fake, steeped in criminality. Clearly, the IRS has nothing, nothing at all but conspiratorial instruments of deceit and harassment.

http://www.codebusters.org/post1412.html#p1412

[The Observer]

And Westie gets this advice:

... have you tried to "appoint" (read: engage) one of those minions as your SPoC? Served with a Declaration-styled timeline of administrative events your SPoC ends up "owning" the entire mess; and if not being addressed within auntie's timeliness policies, your SPoC is at risk of waving his qualified immunity becoming personally liable ...

I am assuming that "SPoC" is "Single Point of Contact". In any event, the $25,000 question is if TDL or any other Codebuster has ever had any luck getting an IRS employee personally held liable for a late notice?''

I am willing to bet that they have not.

[Famspear]

User TDL's complete response to Weston White is as follows:

Wow ... <deepsigh> ... </deepsigh> After having sifted through tons of cases (re. unlawful collections) in hopes of seeing some light at the end of THAT tunnel, it is apparent that (a) our "judiciary" is anything but, (b) the judges themselves fear auntie more than fear itself, and (c) auntie's minions -- literally -- walk on water, thus operate with ABSOLUTE impunity/un-accountability ... Alas, they know it, too!

@ WW ... have you tried to "appoint" (read: engage) one of those minions as your SPoC? Served with a Declaration-styled timeline of administrative events your SPoC ends up "owning" the entire mess; and if not being addressed within auntie's timeliness policies, your SPoC is at risk of waving his qualified immunity becoming personally liable ...

@ f10a ... Just 2009? That would mean that the AUR database has being perverted to "harvest" SNODs on multiple accounts -- clearly in violation of AUR's systemic protocols (once you've dropped out of the AUR inventory, there's no documented procedure to re-queue your accounts back into the AUR; so someone must have figured out an illegal "backdoor"). Do you have your '09 transcripts handy for me/us to look over?

Bozos such as "TDL" apparently waste astonishing amounts of time "studying" the internal workings of the Internal Revenue Service -- especially studying the Internal Revenue Manual -- in a futile attempt to "understand" how the system works. One downside of the availability of statutes, regulations, court opinions, and internal documents such as the Internal Revenue Manual is that the wackadoosters are afforded even more opportunity to delude themselves into thinking that what they are doing constitutes proper "research."

User TDL (short for "TranscriptsDontLie"), for example, has obviously spent some time familiarizing himself with acronyms such as AUR (presumably referring to the "IMF Automated Underreporter Control" system) and SNOD (statutory notice of deficiency). Yet, he comes to all the incorrect conclusions. He professes to believe that HIS beliefs about tax law are correct, and that federal judges always rule the "wrong" way because federal judges somehow fear "auntie" (i.e., the Internal Revenue Service). In psychological parlance, TDL projects his own fear of the IRS onto Federal judges. Subconsciously, TDL is saying: "It is not that I, TDL, fear the IRS, but rather that the federal judges -- who never rule the way I want them to do -- fear the IRS."

[wserra]

Bozos such as "TDL" apparently waste astonishing amounts of time "studying" the internal workings of the Internal Revenue Service -- especially studying the Internal Revenue Manual

Actually, that's exactly how we here at Conspiracy Central designed it. The more time they spend poring over stuff (like the IRM) that's all but legally irrelevant, the less likely they are to see us shifting back and forth between human and lizard forms.

[ASITStands]

Bozos such as "TDL" apparently waste astonishing amounts of time "studying" the internal workings of the Internal Revenue Service -- especially studying the Internal Revenue Manual -- in a futile attempt to "understand" how the system works.

And, never considering they might be wrong! It takes a special kind of idiocy!

Happy Holidays, and all that stuff!

[jkeeb]

Pete's scheme is so old that now Underreporter is apparently referring anyone using the scheme that gets as far as U/R to Examination, hence a scad of 90 day letters after a CP notice from U/R.

[Famspear]

Over at codebusters dot org, user "smudge" was back in May of this year, talking about the IRS levy on his Social Security benefits.

Another user, "silverknife", has offered this opinion for "smudge" (apparently "silverknife" confuses an IRS levy on the benefits with a "termination" of the benefits):

.....remember you also have a right to a hearing to challenge termination of benefits. 42 U.S.C.A. section 405(b)(1). this right is based upon the fifth Amendment proviso that the government may not deprive an individual of property without due process of law and the conclusion that Social security and SSI benefits are forms of property. De Lorme v. Sullivan, 924 F.2d 841

http://www.codebusters.org/post2078.html#p2078

Ummmm.... Earth calling "silverknife"......

In DeLorme v. Sullivan, 924 F.2d 841 (9th Cir. 1991), neither party raised the issue of whether Social Security and SSI benefits are forms of "property." The Court of Appeals never made any such ruling. And whether an individual may deprived of property without due process of law also was not an issue. In that case, there was no ruling on that, either. The terms "Fifth Amendment", "due process" and "property" are not even found in the text of the Court's opinion.

[notorial dissent]

However, when did what was actually said in a ruling or reality for that matter ever really mattered to one of Hendrickson's Hopeless. I've also noticed a real strong predilection to not paying attention to what someone else is saying as being a hallmark of that group.