"Redeeming Lawful Money"

[NYGman]

Funny how this theory has morphed over time. I was doing some research, and the first people to try this arguement took the position that FRN's were not taxable because they were not lawful money, under the same provision David is using to redeem. David has simply reversed this, and says FRN's are taxable, but once redeemed for lawful money it isn't. It's funny how these arguements are recycled.

Now he seems to think there is a fee charged on FRN's that can be refunded when converted, but there is no such fee, using the plain english meaning of fee, and Form 843 can not be used to claim a refund for this non-existant fee... What next, back to the 1040X?

[grixit]

That's just like how some people claim they can't be taxed because they are US citizens, only foreigners are taxed, while others say that only US citizens can be taxed and they are something else, like state citizens or US nationals.

[LPC]

That's just like how some people claim they can't be taxed because they are US citizens, only foreigners are taxed, while others say that only US citizens can be taxed and they are something else, like state citizens or US nationals.

Yes, for every tax protester theory, there is an equal and opposite tax protester theory.

Also known as Fudd's First Law of Opposition (e.g., if you push something hard enough, it will fall over).

[grixit]

That's just like how some people claim they can't be taxed because they are US citizens, only foreigners are taxed, while others say that only US citizens can be taxed and they are something else, like state citizens or US nationals.

Yes, for every tax protester theory, there is an equal and opposite tax protester theory.

Also known as Fudd's First Law of Opposition (e.g., if you push something hard enough, it will fall over).

Dang, that's the first time i've seen a practical use for that law

[wserra]

Denise Elizabeth v. Timothy Geithner, 12-cv-7719, CACD.

A few days ago, Lam "refused for cause" a final notice of levy. I'm sure that'll work, right? After all, it did all those other times.

I note that this levy doesn't include the frivpen that the IRS has threatened to impose. Keep fiddling while Rome burns, kid. Why try to minimize the damage?

[David Merrill]

Denise Elizabeth v. Timothy Geithner, 12-cv-7719, CACD.

A few days ago, Lam "refused for cause" a final notice of levy. I'm sure that'll work, right? After all, it did all those other times.

I note that this levy doesn't include the frivpen that the IRS has threatened to impose. Keep fiddling while Rome burns, kid. Why try to minimize the damage?

I took a look at your attachment. It seems rather kind of the state IRS to warn her that they will soon sweep her bank account. It would seem like they need her approval and she has refused (for cause) to give it.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Famspear]

...It seems rather kind of the state IRS to warn her that they will soon sweep her bank account. It would seem like they need her approval and she has refused (for cause) to give it.

If I were delusional, it would seem that I could flap my arms up and down and thereby be able to leap tall buildings.

I suspect that the "state IRS" (in this case, the California Franchise Tax Board) has the legal power to administratively levy on assets (such as bank accounts), just as the Internal Revenue Service has legal power to do that.

The idea that this power would be dependent on the presence of the "approval" of the bank customer is laughable.

[Kestrel]

A "Refusal for Cause" without stating a cause is no better than a lawsuit filed without stating a claim for which relief may be granted.

But, hey, if your entire premise is based on using Magic Words, I can sell you a gen-you-wine Magic Wand to wave over your paperwork.

Magic Wand made from dead branch blown down last week: $75.
Magic Wand made from fresh-cut mistletoe: $300.
Plastic Magic Wand from Universal Studios Magic Shoppe: $500 (I have to buy a theme park admission ticket to procure that one).
Shipping and handling extra.

[wserra]

I suspect that the "state IRS" (in this case, the California Franchise Tax Board) has the legal power to administratively levy on assets (such as bank accounts), just as the Internal Revenue Service has legal power to do that.

And (see the second page of the notice) to impose penalties for frivolous filings/returns as well.

Keep on telling people who find themselves in holes to keep digging, David. It's sure to help.

[David Merrill]

...It seems rather kind of the state IRS to warn her that they will soon sweep her bank account. It would seem like they need her approval and she has refused (for cause) to give it.

I suspect that the "state IRS" (in this case, the California Franchise Tax Board) has the legal power to administratively levy on assets (such as bank accounts), just as the Internal Revenue Service has legal power to do that.

You have the keys to understanding how this all works right there. And you don't seem to understand.

Find in American Jurisprudence, in Administrative Law, that administrative government - government in miniature - is not allowed to exist except for that it has judicial oversight. Administrative government inherently violates the American separation of powers principle. That is all I am allowed to say here though. If I say more you will have to go to the other place to read it.

I will however add thanks to God that the people making these decisions in the end are brighter than you.

[Famspear]

...It seems rather kind of the state IRS to warn her that they will soon sweep her bank account. It would seem like they need her approval and she has refused (for cause) to give it.

I suspect that the "state IRS" (in this case, the California Franchise Tax Board) has the legal power to administratively levy on assets (such as bank accounts), just as the Internal Revenue Service has legal power to do that.

You have the keys to understanding how this all works right there. And you don't seem to understand.

Find in American Jurisprudence, in Administrative Law, that administrative government - government in miniature - is not allowed to exist except for that it has judicial oversight. Administrative government inherently violates the American separation of powers principle. That is all I am allowed to say here though. If I say more you will have to go to the other place to read it.

I will however add thanks to God that the people making these decisions in the end are brighter than you.

David, you're in no position to assess my understanding of federal tax law. You're also in no position to evaluate how bright I am.

No, "adminstrative government" does not "inherently violate the American separation of powers principle."

I am explaining the law to you. With some exceptions, the IRS has the legal power to seize property by ADMINISTRATIVE LEVY (that means, without having to go to court or obtain court approval).

What I am saying is that the California Franchise Tax Board might have that same kind of power under California law. I haven't researched the California law, so I don't know that for certain.

You're not a legal scholar, David. I understand this aspect of federal tax law quite well. You do not.

[Famspear]

David, you wrote:

I will however add thanks to God that the people making these decisions in the end are brighter than you.

Two points....

First, my tested IQ in high school was just one digit lower than that of a certain famous Nobel-prize winning scientist (I don't know whether I was supposed to be told what my IQ is; I remember that I learned it when I was handed some papers that maybe I wasn't supposed to see.) When I was in high school, one of my teachers (and some of my friends) told me I was a genius.

Second, the "people making these decisions" agree with me. Or, to put it more correctly, as a lawyer I report on what the people who "make these decisions" have decided, David. These people are called "federal judges," and the decisions that they make are made in court cases. To illustrate about the legal validity of the power of the Internal Revenue Service to administratively levy on assets without having to go to court, here is something adapted from something I wrote in.... another place on the internet.....

Some tax protesters argue that the Internal Revenue Service has no authority to seize assets to satisfy tax claims.

In United States v. Rodgers, the United States Supreme Court stated:

Administrative levy, unlike an ordinary lawsuit, and unlike the procedure described in §7403, does not require any judicial intervention, and it is up to the taxpayer, if he so chooses, to go to court if he claims that the assessed amount was not legally owing.

--United States v. Rodgers, 461 U.S. 677, 103 S. Ct. 2132, 83-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9374 (1983) (dicta).

Similarly, in United States v. Baggot, the Supreme Court stated:

The IRS need never go into court to assess and collect the amount owed; it is empowered to collect the tax by nonjudicial means (such as levy on property or salary, 26 U. S. C. §§ 6331, 6332), without having to prove to a court the validity of the underlying tax liability.

--United States v. Baggot, 463 U.S. 476 (1983) (dicta) (parenthetical text in original).

After the decisions in Rodgers and Baggot, Congress provided for limited exceptions to the general rule that court approval is not required for a levy by the Internal Revenue Service. For example, an IRS levy on a principal residence must be approved in writing by a federal district court judge or magistrate. See Internal Revenue Code sections 6334(a)(13)(B) and 6334(e)(1). Section 6334 also provides that certain assets are not subject to an IRS levy, such as certain wearing apparel, fuel, furniture and household effects, certain books and tools of trade of the taxpayer's profession, undelivered mail, the portion of salary, wages, etc., needed to support minor children, and certain other assets.

The statute authorizing the Internal Revenue Service to seize assets without going to court is 26 USC 6331. For exceptions to this rule, see 26 USC 6334. For more background, see the United States Supreme Court decisions in United States v. National Bank of Commerce, 472 U.S. 713 (1985) and G.M. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 U.S. 338 (1977).

In the case of Brian v. Gugin, a group of taxpayers (including a Mr. Ralph Brian) sued a group of IRS and other government employees, (including Ms. Phylis Gugin), for what the taxpayers claimed was a violation of their rights. The following is an excerpt from the court’s decision in the case:

The plaintiffs' premise for their complaint is that the IRS agents were required to have a court order in order to be able to legally seize property for delinquent taxes. Unfortunately, this is a faulty premise. Title 26 U.S.C. §6331 authorizes the IRS to seize property of any person liable for any tax upon ten days notice. The plaintiffs are incorrect in stating that §§6331 and 6321 only apply to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The statute specifically states that any person may have their property levied upon. 26 U.S.C. §§6331(a) and 6321. The plaintiffs also cite 26 U.S.C. §7402 which grants jurisdiction to the district courts to issue orders, processes and judgments as well as enforce IRS summons. This section does not require a court order in order to levy on property under §6331.

A levy by definition is a summary non-judicial process which provides the IRS with prompt and convenient method for satisfying delinquent tax claims. [ . . . ] [T]he IRS has the option under §6502 to collect its assessment by either a levy or a court proceeding [ . . . . ]

Accordingly, the IRS agents were acting within the authority granted under §6331 and no court order was required for the attempted levy on Ralph Brian's property. Concerning the constitutional violations alleged by the plaintiffs, this court cannot find that any constitutional rights were allegedly violated if the attempted seizure was lawful under §6331.

It is important to note that the plaintiff Ralph Brian is not without a course of action under the Internal Revenue Code. If the delinquent taxes claimed are not delinquent, the taxpayer may bring an action with the IRS for a refund.

--Brian v. Gugin, 853 F. Supp. 358, 94-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,278 (D. Idaho 1994), aff’d, 95-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,067 (9th Cir. 1995) (italics in original).

EDIT: I will note, however, that no one has told me I'm a genius lately.....

[Prof]

Famspear, I do not know whether you are a genius, but -- like the children of Lake Wobegon -- you are certainly "above average."

Because DMVP is on my "ignore" list, I assume he was trying to argue that statutory liens are somehow improper. As I pointed out to him years ago, he certainly doesn't know anything about the law in this area.

For example, statutory liens are created by all or almost all state taxing statutes, particularly those involving ad valorem taxes of personalty and realty.

Some state statutory liens require judicial action for seizure; some require judicial action only for the sale of property seized.

[notorial dissent]

Prof, much more concise if you just leave it at
"...doesn't know anything about the law..." or even more correctly,
"...doesn't know anything...", saves on all those explanations he ignores anyway.

[David Merrill]

It becomes like a mantra that you chant to keep yourselves convinced.

[The Observer]

It becomes like a mantra that you chant to keep yourselves convinced.

Another fine moment of deep irony provided by David.

[grixit]

Prof, much more concise if you just leave it at
"...doesn't know anything about the law..." or even more correctly,
"...doesn't know anything...", saves on all those explanations he ignores anyway.

Don't know much about history
Don't know much causality
Don't know much about a home computer
Or being smarter than a motor scooter

But i do know that i can help you
And if you'd do what i tell you to
What a woeful result we will see

Don't know much about jurisdiction
Don't know how to tell a fact from fiction
Don't know much about income taxation
Don't know how to read a court citation

But i know that one and one make three
And if you'd take advice from me
What a woeful result we will see

Don't know much about the UCC
Don't even know fungibility
Don't know much about Smith or Keynes
Don't even know what currency means

But i know that FRNs aren't money
And if you come be my lawful bunny
What a woeful result we will see

[David Merrill]

The irony is that you demand here that I would show you case law citations when the IRS attorneys will never prosecute anybody for redeeming lawful money. That is the hipocracy Wserra brings to the plate here. He knows how case law is generated, or is expected to anyway.

Even the frivpens are missapplied by agents who are misled by the IRS attorneys.

[David Merrill]

How can the opposite of money (debt) be considered a derivative of money with any value (in money)?


NYGman is an attorney and therefore has a job to do.

[Gregg]

Prof, much more concise if you just leave it at
"...doesn't know anything about the law..." or even more correctly,
"...doesn't know anything...", saves on all those explanations he ignores anyway.

Don't know much about history
Don't know much causality
Don't know much about a home computer
Or being smarter than a motor scooter

But i do know that i can help you
And if you'd do what i tell you to
What a woeful result we will see

Don't know much about jurisdiction
Don't know how to tell a fact from fiction
Don't know much about income taxation
Don't know how to read a court citation

But i know that one and one make three
And if you'd take advice from me
What a woeful result we will see

Don't know much about the UCC
Don't even know fungibility
Don't know much about Smith or Keynes
Don't even know what currency means

But i know that FRNs aren't money
And if you come be my lawful bunny
What a woeful result we will see

That is damn near as funny as the smartalek kid in Idaho getting tased at the courthouse on U-Tube.