Here is his letter from the IRS saying "Dude, where's our paperwork?":
![Image](http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a314/grixit/david1noletter.png)
Here is his reply saying "Homie don't play that":
![Image](http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a314/grixit/david2esponsetoirs.png)
The IRS responds "cool, Bro, l8r":
![Image](http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a314/grixit/david3responsefromirs.png)
Is it normal for there to be a 7 month gap between his reply and theirs? Whenever I've corresponded, it's been 30 to 60 day turn-around.The Observer wrote:And as I pointed out in the other thread, this is the typical form/pattern letter sent out by the IRS. You will notice that the letter states that based on only the information provided by David, the IRS agrees that he isn't legally required to file a return. It does not say that this agreement is based on any other information that the IRS may have or will receive in the future. Which is why the proviso is included that the IRS may have to contact him in the future if "other tax issues arise." Such as preparing a substitute-for-return if they have 3rd party information showing that he received income, or opening an audit referral if he had paid mortgage interest as reported by a lender.
In short, there is no way that anyone would reasonably conclude that this letter is proof that the IRS would agree with the arguments and claims that David has been putting forth here for why he not liable for income tax. There are way too many other factors to consider as being possibly in play, not in the least that David might have structured his income and/or assets so as to appear to be not on the radar of a person who is generating income on a regular basis.
How about getting a letter from Kansas City, responding to Kansas City, and then getting the next letter from Fresno?webhick wrote:The Observer wrote:
Is it normal for there to be a 7 month gap between his reply and theirs? Whenever I've corresponded, it's been 30 to 60 day turn-around.
Again, there could be a number of reasons for the delay, anywhere from an employee dropping the ball and delaying the response to the fact that there were a number of items that the campus had to look at before issuing the response. But none of that is really relevant as to the answer itself, which does not say that David's arguments are correct and legally binding on the government. I note in particular that David's letter did not cite code sections, regulations, or court rulings in support of his contention. So the letters are meaningless in terms of an IRS decision that states that David's arguments are legally correct and in agreement with the judicial system.webhick wrote:Is it normal for there to be a 7 month gap between his reply and theirs? Whenever I've corresponded, it's been 30 to 60 day turn-around.
Which is more than likely an indication that David's response required the letter to be transferred to the Fresno campus. I am not sure if there is a unit in Fresno that is assigned to look at responses that appear to be frivolous responses, but that very well may be what happened here.How about getting a letter from Kansas City, responding to Kansas City, and then getting the next letter from Fresno?
webhick wrote:Is it normal for there to be a 7 month gap between his reply and theirs? Whenever I've corresponded, it's been 30 to 60 day turn-around.The Observer wrote:And as I pointed out in the other thread, this is the typical form/pattern letter sent out by the IRS. You will notice that the letter states that based on only the information provided by David, the IRS agrees that he isn't legally required to file a return. It does not say that this agreement is based on any other information that the IRS may have or will receive in the future. Which is why the proviso is included that the IRS may have to contact him in the future if "other tax issues arise." Such as preparing a substitute-for-return if they have 3rd party information showing that he received income, or opening an audit referral if he had paid mortgage interest as reported by a lender.
In short, there is no way that anyone would reasonably conclude that this letter is proof that the IRS would agree with the arguments and claims that David has been putting forth here for why he not liable for income tax. There are way too many other factors to consider as being possibly in play, not in the least that David might have structured his income and/or assets so as to appear to be not on the radar of a person who is generating income on a regular basis.
"Useful"?david wrote:
Paths of the Sea,
If you were a properly identified IRS agent that
presented me with the proper documents,,,,
with regard to "" Boyd v. United States, 116 US
616 - Supreme Court 1886 "",,, you wouldn't get
them. . .
And, NOPE, those letters are not evidence at all
of liability, just my point of view.
However, my letters and posting here can be useful
to me before a jury.
If so a big plus for him since he already has a letter from the IRS saying (at least as he tells it) that he is right and the IRS has conceded he is not taxable. If he faces a serious audit it will give him the perfect opportunity to rub our collective noses in it by sucessfully applying the theories he has espoused here to his own tax returns.Gregg wrote:At the very least, the letters do confirm that someone at the IRS is aware and interested in why David has not filed any returns since whenever. Eventually, that awareness and interest will pop up again on a slow enough day, and they may at that time have a few more questions for our guest.
Oh, David, not sure if you were aware of it or not, but you might find it interesting that at least one participant in this and the other thread is in fact an employee of the IRS, and not the kind that picks pre-approved paragraphs for form letters. You may have turned yourself in here.
Just sayin'