Someone at LH can answer a simple question, but ...

[Quixote]

Someone at LH can answer a simple question, but it doesn't matter because no one believes him.

LibertyLover7, one of Pete's owls, despite having a modicum of common sense, called DianeM on nonsense she was spewing about frivolous return penalties. Diane responded. She seems to be saying that she knows she's right because nothing she has tried has ever worked.

[LPC]

DianeM's ramblings are worth taking apart.

Liberty Lover7, section 6702 is a civil penalty charge for a violation of the tax law.

I'm not sure I'd use the word "violation." Maybe "disregard" would be a better word.

It is not a stand alone or at will penalty and in fact an end all penalty for a determined frivolous postion.

Actually, I think it is all those things.

Section 6702 does not impose a penalty for violating some other provision of the code; it imposes a penalty for conduct that is described within section 6702 itself. Now obviously, you have to look at other sections to establish what is a "return" or "submission" and what is "frivolous," but that's not much different than any other section of the IRC.

I don't know what "at will" is supposed to mean in this context, but section 6702 is an "assessable" penalty, meaning (I think) that it is not mechanical or automatic (such as an "addition to tax" failure to file or pay), but requires some determinations to be made.

Also not sure what "end all" means in this context, but it is just about the only civil penalty there is for a frivolous return.

LL7 who makes that determination?

Initially, the IRS does.

The first notice I ever received from the IRS was Letter 3176C telling me that I had taken a determined frivolous postion and to go to their website and choose from a list of postions that they had determined to be frivolous. The law doesn't work that way LL7.

Yes and no.

The law doesn't require (or allow) you to go to a website and choose which frivolous position you are deemed to have taken. And I don't think that Letter 3176C told her to do that.

The law does allow the IRS to determine that someone has taken one of the frivolous positions listed on their website, assess a penalty, give notice of the penalty, and proceed to collect the penalty.

Now, upon hours, weeks, and months of calling every single number on the notices that I had received from the IRS to correct this wrongful charge of civil penalties and for some reason all these numbers led to collections, I was asked first, are you a corporation and then they would ask, are you in violation of section 6700 and or 6701. My answer, no. And then I would be told that these penalties could not be charged to me but nobody within their agency knew how to correct them.

You have to wonder what this crazy woman is telling the people on the telephone that leads them to ask about violations of section 6700 and 6701.

Even made visits to my local IRS office. The first time, after my ss# was punched into the system, about 4 or 5 people came out their offices to see who I was. And then I was informed they did not have the legal authority to speak with me. And I was turned away and when I stepped into the elevator a nice security guard escorted my husband and I out of the building. The second time, just recently, I punched in my ss# and two security guards showed up in the hallway to keep an eye on me LL7, just because I asked for the burden of proof for these civil penalty charges. And once again I was informed that they did not have the authority to speak with me and once again my husband and I were escorted out of the building by security guards.

Sounds surrealistic. I wish I had been there.

Just so you know LL7, back in 2006 I was charged 3 times with penalties under section 6702 for a total of $1,500.00 and based upon these penalties I received an intent to levy. I appealed the levy and lost. And not knowing I wrote a letter and the next thing I know I have 5 more penalties under section 6702 for a total of $25,000.00. They used the same 3 forms again along with 2 forms that had been processed for 05 and 06 and even returned my money to me except for 06, they took that money and applied it towards the alleged debt for civil penalties.

Yep, this woman obviously knows what she's doing.

Later I learned that one cannot appeal a levy

Technically correct, because once the levy is actually made, there is nothing left to appeal and the only remedy is a suit for a refund (or a suit for wrongful collection action, if the levy was actually wrongful, which isn't common but does sometimes happen).

and as a matter of fact one cannot appeal anything when you are charged 6702 penalties.

Not true, as LibertyLover7 himself demonstrated.

I contacted attorneys and none of them had seen section 6702 penalties

Yes, what I call abnormal jurisprudence is something most lawyers don't see very often.

and one attorney advised me to pay penalties because any response would get me more penalty charges.

Good advice, which DianeM herself will consider ridiculous because that's exactly what happened to her. (Tax deniers don't learn from experience. Quite the opposite. Experience seems to make them more stupid.)

There are procedures put into place LL7, saftey nets to make sure that section 6702 penalties are not wrongfully charged because once charged all rights to due process have been used.

Nope. There is no right to due process *before* a frivolous return penalty is assessed. There are only post-assessment remedies.

That's what LL7 told her, and she knows he's wrong. She just hasn't yet found any evidence to show that he's wrong. (As I explained above, her own experiences aren't evidence of anything, not even to her.)

Do you happen to know what these procedures are LL7? Because I know I didn't get them.

Yes, and you didn't get them for the same reason you haven't been gored by a unicorn.

And I will continue this later LL7.

Looking forward to it.

[JamesVincent]

I think one of the biggest answers is right there in her text, Dan.

I was asked first, are you a corporation and then they would ask,

I don't see anything in 6702 that makes it require you to be a corporation. Or even mention a corporation. So her saying they asked her if she was and she answered in the negative, then they said she shouldn't have received a penalty is a bunch of malarky. It sounds like the same old TP "corporation" argument thrown into the mix with her actual experience. And her entire attitude and rant sounds like she more then qualified under several different parts of the statute, including (a)(2)(B) reflects a desire to delay or impede the administration of Federal tax laws.

6700 and 6701 deal more with the swindler then the swindled don't they? Like the preparers who make funny with numbers to inflate refunds or the gurus who tell how to do funny returns? So how would they have anything to do with her situation?

[LPC]

I think one of the biggest answers is right there in her text, Dan.

I was asked first, are you a corporation and then they would ask,

I don't see anything in 6702 that makes it require you to be a corporation. Or even mention a corporation. So her saying they asked her if she was and she answered in the negative, then they said she shouldn't have received a penalty is a bunch of malarky.

I agree.

What I intended to suggest was that, if those were the questions they were asking her, then the questions were triggered by misleading crap that she was feeding them.

A variation on the "garbage in-garbage out" phenomenon.

[stija]

What do the regulations promulgated in the federal register pursuant to 6702 say on the subject of penalties?

Are they any clearer?

[Arthur Rubin]

I have a comment on the signature above:

GUESTS: Forum members do NOT fully understand Title 26 laws. You might as well go to IRS.GOV and read there as it is probably closer to the truth.

As the poster has absolutely no idea what title 26 includes , guests would be wise to check irs.gov and find few disagreements with what the "regulars" say here.

[stija]

There are not disagreements.

I discriminated in favor of IRS because IT, unlike members here, does not provide advice. Therefore, no one gets to hear nonsense that members repeat without understanding what they are saying.

I did not know Title 26 includes things. I thought it was a body of federal revenue laws collecting income from activities generating such taxable income.

Why don't you tell me what it includes? I did come here to learn something.

[Famspear]

What do the regulations promulgated in the federal register pursuant to 6702 say on the subject of penalties?

Are they any clearer?

Oh, the regulations are MUCH clearer!

They're even clearer than the regulations under section 6699!

[Famspear]

......I discriminated in favor of IRS because IT, unlike members here, does not provide advice. Therefore, no one gets to hear nonsense that members repeat without understanding what they are saying.

What we say is not nonsense, and we certainly understand what we are saying.

The problem is that you don't understand what we're saying.

[Famspear]

What do the regulations promulgated in the federal register pursuant to 6702 say on the subject of penalties?

Are they any clearer?

Oh, the regulations are MUCH clearer!

They're even clearer than the regulations under section 6699!

Note to all normal readers of this forum (meaning, all people who don't live and breathe federal tax law every day).....

Tax people (that means people like me) have weird, twisted senses of humor. This sometimes manifests itself in the form of inside jokes, aimless diatribes, partially hydrogenated algorithms, meaninglessly fortuitous overrriding observations, and

.....sometimes......

..................................(shudder).........

limericks!

YOU HAVE BEEN FOREWARNED!

[Arthur Rubin]

There are not disagreements.

I discriminated in favor of IRS because IT, unlike members here, does not provide advice. Therefore, no one gets to hear nonsense that members repeat without understanding what they are saying.

I did not know Title 26 includes things. I thought it was a body of federal revenue laws collecting income from activities generating such taxable income.

Why don't you tell me what it includes? I did come here to learn something.

"Includes" was a bit of a joke, in that he/she asserts that "employee" (in law) does not include "employee" because Title 26 reports that it "includes" (in different sections) federal officials and officers of corporations.

But you did not come here to learn something. I'm not sure why you came here; it's unclear whether your intent is to obfuscate the issues, to try to convince unsuspecting guests that your statements have some basis in law, or to try to confuse regulars.

As for particulars:

nonsense that ... repeat without understanding what they are saying.

is exactly what you are doing.

I did not know Title 26 includes things. I thought it was a body of federal revenue laws collecting income from activities generating such taxable income.

Ignoring "activities", yes. It is a body of federal laws specifying assessment and collection of federal taxes on income.

[stija]

Perhaps you should start with a careful reading of Ahrens v. Sims. There is no better elaboration on income/excise taxation than that one.

Perhaps you want to also explain why the engineer, real estate business owner, and all others were not the proper subject of the tax.

Perhaps you do not understand the difference between public employment and private.

Perhaps you do not understand the difference between legal (public) rights and natural rights.

Perhaps you won't do any of the above and you'll continue living in your one dimensional bubble believing that Congress 'copyrighted' rights to all 'employment' and therefore your right to contract, which is what the ninth circuit court of appeals just ruled is a 1st amendment protected right to commercial speech.

Many perhapses, i am sure you won't go past the first one.

[LPC]

Perhaps you should start with a careful reading of Ahrens v. Sims. There is no better elaboration on income/excise taxation than that one.

Ahrens v. Sims is from the Arkansas Supreme Court, and not the United States Supreme Court, and is about the Arkansas Constitution, and not the United States Constitution. Even worse, the quotation that tax deniers (and other idiots like yourself) like to trot out is from the minority opinion, so it’s not even a correct statement of the law in Arkansas. The majority opinion included the following:

“My conclusion of the whole matter is that there are two, and only two, limitations in our [state] Constitution upon the power of the state to raise revenue for state purposes, namely (1) that taxes on property must be ad valorem, equal and uniform; and (2) that the Legislature cannot lay a tax for state revenue on occupations that are of common right. A tax on incomes is neither a property tax nor an occupation tax, and is not prohibited or excluded by our Constitution.“

Sims v. Ahrens, 167 Ark. 557, 271 S.W. 720 (1925) (emphasis added).

[stija]

There is no better elaboration on income/excise taxation than that one.

I never suggested it was authoritative in re: federal taxation. I suggested that it elaborated on what an income tax is. Fundamental principles of excise taxation are the same.

[Famspear]

There is no better elaboration on income/excise taxation than that one.

I never suggested it was authoritative in re: federal taxation. I suggested that it elaborated on what an income tax is. Fundamental principles of excise taxation are the same.

You are totally clueless.



EDIT: Stija reminds me of Weston White. Sort of a Weston White without the personality.

[Famspear]

I hasten to add that while Stija obviously ain't the brightest bulb on the tree, he still has a long way to go to match the stupidity of Weston White. (You know me; I always want to keep things in perspective.)

Does anybody remember the time Weston White posted, on one of his web sites, the copy-and-paste paraphrases and quotes from the losing taxpayer's brief in Lucas v. Earl under the mistaken belief that it was part of the Supreme Court's decision in the case? After being publicly humiliated about that here, he gave some lame answer which was, in effect, something along the lines of "What's the matter with you Quatloos regulars -- you expect me to actually believe that what I post is accurate?"

Stija's idiotic response after the Sims v. Ahrens hilarity is still somewhat bush league compared to what Weston used to come up with, but hey, Stija, keep trying!

[Famspear]

I never suggested it [the case of Sims v. Ahrens] was authoritative in re: federal taxation. I suggested that it elaborated on what an income tax is. Fundamental principles of excise taxation are the same.

Oh, really? You really believe that fundamental principles of excise taxation are the same? So the fundamental principles in Sims v. Ahrens for Arkansas excises should be the same as those for Federal excises, right?

You are completely wong.

In Sims v. Ahrens, the Court stated:

.....that the [Arkansas] Legislature cannot lay a tax for state revenue on occupations that are of common right.

While, for federal tax purposes, the Congress can MOST CERTAINLY tax a vocation or activity pursued as of "common right." From the United States Supreme Court:

..... natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of less importance. An excise is not limited to vocations or activities that may be prohibited altogether. It is not limited to those that are the outcome of a franchise. It [an excise] extends to vocations or activities pursued as of common right [ . . . ]

---from Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937) (footnotes and citations omitted).

[LPC]

I never suggested it [Ahrens v. Sims] was authoritative in re: federal taxation. I suggested that it elaborated on what an income tax is. Fundamental principles of excise taxation are the same.

Why? Why are they the same?

I'm especially curious because the section of the Arkansas constitution at issue in Ahrens v. Sims did not use the word "excise."

[Gregg]

Dan, he read it on the internet, a much more reliable source....

[Pottapaug1938]

... or else a buddy at his favorite bar told him.