Taxpayer scares bejeebus out of IRS

[Quixote]

Harvey, posting as Nationwide on Lost Horizons, attributes a standard penalty waiver to "scar[ing] the bejeebus outta the IRS" with lawful money gibberish.

This company was penalized for paying late, didn't pay the penalties, and the IRS then threatened levy/seizure. But something in the company's 843 Request for Abatement scared the bejeebus outta the IRS as they granted entire forgiveness:
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?681

The company's penalty abatement request contained the sentence, "If the IRS were to levy our bank account property interesting legal and jurisdictional issues would result considering that a portion of said account contains redeemed lawful money pursuant to 12 USC Section 411." That doesn't make sense even under Van Pelt's wildest version of the "redeeming lawful money" bullsh!t. The company's Form 843 and attachment are reproduced at http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?681 . Typically, the "suitor" who posted it did not provide a copy of IRS's substantive response from which one might glean the actual reason the granted the waiver.

[Famspear]

Yaawwwnn....

Yep, looks like a standard penalty waiver to me, too.

Poor Harvey.

I mean Harvester.

Uh, I mean Nationwide.

Or Libre. Johnny. Johnthetaxist. Johnnycash. John Travis Harvester. Whatever. I bet the kid has more names than His Royal Highness Charles Philip Arthur George Windsor-Mountbatten, Prince of Wales, Duke of Rothesay, Duke of Cornwall, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland.

And I'll bet Harvey has more delusions than Irwin Schiff.

[Cpt Banjo]

Not to mention Sir Loin of Beef, Earl of Cloves, Duke of Brittingham, Baron of Munchhausen, Essence of Myrrh, Milk of Magnesia, and Quarter of Ten.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apYbV_TMYUc

[LPC]

Typically, the "suitor" who posted it did not provide a copy of IRS's substantive response from which one might glean the actual reason the granted the waiver.

The "Statement of Adjustment to Your Account" from the IRS states that it is the result of "your inquiry of July 19, 2012."

But the "suitor" doesn't supply a copy of that, either.

So we don't know what the suitor said, and we don't know why the IRS did what it did, and from that we are supposed to believe that the abatement was due to some gibberish about "lawful money"?

And how can "lawful money" be in a bank account? A bank account is nothing but electronic ones and zeros in a computer that show the amount of the debt owed by the bank to the depositor, to be repaid in any "legal tender." The amount of the deposit is not backed by gold, or even by the full faith and credit of the United States. It's only backed by the full faith and credit of the bank (insured by the FDIC).

Pretty soon, they'll be arguing that gift cards are "lawful money."