David the Non Taxpayer?

[grixit]

Ok, i removed David's SS Num and Case Number from the images he sent me.

Here is his letter from the IRS saying "Dude, where's our paperwork?":

Here is his reply saying "Homie don't play that":

The IRS responds "cool, Bro, l8r":

[grixit]

The cut off at the right edge of each page is an artifact of the forum display, the page images are whole.

Anyway, it looks as if he got the wording we've been asking to see. Question is, is this authentic? Will millions start doing likewise and so end the income tax? Is Obama going to have to start digging through the couch cushions?

[The Observer]

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.

[webhick]

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.

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.

[Paths of the Sea]

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.

How about getting a letter from Kansas City, responding to Kansas City, and then getting the next letter from Fresno?

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[The Observer]

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.

This is the problem with looking at pattern or form letters that the IRS issue to taxpayers. They are general and don't really respond in much detail or factual information that would allow one to make a specific conclusion about what is occuring between the taxpayer and the IRS, especially letters that are inquring about whether the taxpayer needs to file a return and depend on a low-level employee to generate a generic response from a list of pre-prepared paragraphs.

How about getting a letter from Kansas City, responding to Kansas City, and then getting the next letter from Fresno?

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.

[Burnaby49]

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.

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.

Or, a thought, there might be additional correspondence that took place between the two letters that David provided that he's not showing us. Perhaps he gave the Irs actual information, apart from his "go away IRS" letter, that demonstrated that he did not need to file for the 2010 tax year.

[Paths of the Sea]

In any case, there is nothing there to support the claim that simply claiming he was "not licensed" was relevant to any determination about his liability for personal income tax.

To decide the liability issue, we would have to know his income and related details.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Famspear]

The time lag on IRS responses can indeed vary widely in my experience. Many, many letters from tax practitioners simply aren't answered at all -- particularly formal reasonable cause requests for waiver of penalty for late filing of returns. I don't think it's nefarious on the part of IRS personnel; there is simply a lot of systemic incompetency at the IRS, and I think it will always be that way.

In terms of the IRS response to David's letter, I agree. I think that in general, people who don't practice as CPAs, EAs, tax attorneys, etc., do have the idea that somehow whatever the IRS says must be "the law." After all, the IRS is the agency that administers the law.

Most people are not accustomed to thinking in terms of the IRS sometimes having an interpretation of the law which is sometimes incorrect. People are naive.

With many tax protester-tax denier folks, though, it's not a question of being naive. After all, these people conveniently REJECT whatever the IRS says when they feel that what the IRS says does not comport with their own view of what the tax law should be. It is only when people like David find something -- such as a routine IRS letter -- that appears to fit with their idea that they're not required to file a return, etc., etc., that they start waving (metaphorically speaking) the wonderful letter from the IRS and excitedly exclaiming that they have found something from the IRS that "proves" that they're right.

I once received a letter from the IRS Service Center in Atlanta that claimed that the period from July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003 was a period of "greater than twelve months." I used to receive letters from the IRS claiming that the Form 1041 tax return (U.S. Income Tax Return for Estates and Trusts) for a calendar year period was due on "April 4". In December 2012 I received a threatening letter from the IRS, demanding to know why my client's Form 1120 tax return -- for the year ended December 31, 2012 -- hadn't been filed yet, and warning my client (in so many words) that the IRS might just have to prepare a section 6020(b) return if the taxpayer didn't straighten up.

Of course, the period from July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003 is not a period of "greater than twelve months."

And a Form 1041 return for a calendar year period is not due on "April 4."

And a Form 1120 tax return for a year ended December 31, 2012 wasn't even due until March of 2013.

In each of these letters, the IRS asserted things that were blatantly false. Yet, David seems to want to think that the letter he received from the IRS somehow proves that the IRS is correct about David's personal tax situation.

Why? Because that conclusion fits into a notion that David is desperately trying to support -- in his own mind.

[Paths of the Sea]

That also brings to mind how Kent Hovind keeps harping about something on his masterfile transcript that was allegedly kept hidden from his jury and would have possibly exonerated him by showing he was not liable for any taxes.

Nope, that's not the way it works.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[david]

Hey grixit, Thanks for the publish. Lotsa panties inna wad I see. My SS no. was not displayed anywhere on those letters, or maybe I'm blind in addition to talking gibberish. And the case number is necessary for confirmation by those interested. I wish you hadn't diddled with them, gives the gang here more ammo. They are copies of public record, no reason to hide.
Arr-right, it seems to me the intent of this forum is to blow holes in someone's ideas who are foolish enough to publish them here. Well, you tried with me. And all of you were a tremendous help to me. Thanks.
Now, no citations, no reference of law, just my opinion an IRS flunky maybe mistakenly agreed with. No legal precedent, nothing.......except.......that series of letters, plus other documents I rely upon, might help convince a JURY I was not acting willfully. Where things go from there, if I ever get there, with regard to that I am clueless. And speaking of form letters, how come they got autographs? in ink? by hand? That gives me two witnesses I can call in my defense if necessary.
And you guys ain't no jury.
After April 4th, if grixit will accept my letter of revocation to the Sec. Tres. and all the other documents associated with it, ( I'll redact my ss no.) I'd love to romp around the mulberry bush with you guys again.
It's been my pleasure, thanks for your help. After a couple days rest, I'll see what you think of what I'd call a major clerical error in the US Const. even tho my opinion doesn't seem to carry much weight around here. David

[Paths of the Sea]

David wrote in his letter to the IRS, in relevant part:

- "I am not licensed by the U.S. Government
- to engage to engage in any activities at this
- time so I am not required to file any returns
- with the U.S. Government at this time."

The record presented here provides no evidence that liability for filing a personal, federal income tax return requires "licensing by the U.S. Government to engage in an activity".

That's my fundamental claim/observation.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Pottapaug1938]

David's collection of letters essentially adds up to "garbage in, garbage out." I'll be sure to wave to him when he is heading up the Southeast Expressway, enroute to the the Federal courthouse in South Boston, when the IRS finally catches up to him.

And by the way, david, the IRS is not obligated to back up letters such as this with a full legal opinion. Don't worry, though -- the court that convicts you, and the appellate court which upholds the trial verdict, will fulfill that need just fine.

[david]

Aww heck, I just couldn't stay away. Your pleasant company and assistance is addictive.
grixit, I think russo interviewed a sweet little jury forelady who happens to think that way about the defendant that was before her. Fact or fiction, I can't say. A little birdie suggests to me it might not be fiction.
the Observer, " based on only the information provided by David, the IRS agrees...", the IRS might change it's mind someday. Then we'll find out with regard to my particular situation. And, " 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....". From '98 till '07 the IRS received 1099's from a bank showing interest earned ON my checking account. That ended in '07 and then immediately the IRS probably started receiving paid mortgage reports from one bank and then a second bank in '09 I think and continuing currently. In '10, the IRS started receiving 1099's from one of my shellfish buyers. All those reports and forms are still pouring in. How would you deal with a " substitute-for-return"? I'm not hiding anything.
Burnaby49, there was no additional correspondence within that time. That's why I wish grixit had not redacted what he did. However you can find that case record number in one of my earlier posts in Otto Skinner. Or ask grixit for it. Go for it!!!
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. With regard to bank and shellfish buyer records, you might get them, I haven't studied that part yet. I'm not sure if they are public or private record. 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.
Pottapaug1938, if you try defending yourself depending on your interpretation of ' Brushaber ', I think the situation might be in reverse. I hope that doesn't happen to you.
Famspear, thanks for the support. But,,, do you really think that the IRS assertions in BOTH letters are blatantly false?
Good feed-back guys, thanks.
David

[Paths of the Sea]

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.

"Useful"?

I don't think so, but maybe we will find out.
Maybe not.
They don't catch all the bank robbers and rapists.
They don't catch all the tax cheats.

But thanks for the consideration.
Maybe you can call me as a witness.

Personally, I think there is a difference in setting forth a position (i.e., I am not licensed and therefore not liable) and actually having a position (i.e., you know you are liable and are just playing the game).

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Pottapaug1938]

david, I would be pleased to defend myself on the basis of my interpretation of the Brushaber decision. You wanna know why? It's because that interpretation has been repeatedly upheld by appellate courts for almost 100 years. You, on the other hand, simply have the results of your own parsing of the decision, such that you think you know differently. Well, I'll be delighted to see you cite so much as ONE appellate case in which the HOLDING -- i.e., the central theme of the case -- supports your contention.

I'll be waiting....

[Gregg]

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'

[Burnaby49]

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'

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.

Well, actually, your collective noses. As a Canadian I really can't claim to have a horse in this specific race. Our own detax types are losing badly but that shouldn't deter David. As Deep Knight says, American Exceptionalism!

[.]

Assuming that he's not an elaborate troll, this guy has been somewhere on the IRS's radar (such as it is) for years.

I'll guess that between this and the Skinner thread he's gained a new, probably more prominent position on that radar, seeing as how this board has been posted to by at least one IRS employee and is read by many more, some of whom are or were involved in enforcement.

It's sort of sad that he thinks his posts here would be helpful to him in litigation, but, then this is someone who hasn't yet managed to figure out how to quote another post.

Sooner or later every single one of those 1099s is going to be matched to him. Now, after posting TP gibberish, his personal info, claiming that he hasn't filed in years and isn't liable it'll probably be sooner than later.

His growing pile of BS will probably shortly start its long and inexorable downhill roll -- it may already have been set in progress by his postings. I don't know about anyone else, but if I was a non-filing tax evader, I'd avoid advertising that fact anywhere. Especially on a board read by IRS and DoJ personnel. But, that's just me.

On the positive side, by not filing at all he's avoided maybe 25K of frivolous filing penalties and a referral to Ogden years ago. Victory!

[Duke2Earl]

I have read a number of David's post here by now and I think that David is the "practical" type of scofflaw. In a lot of respects his attitude is endemic in our society today and in part is responsible for me no longer practicing tax law.

I started practicing tax law in the 70's. I belong to an older generation that actually believe in something called ethics and doing the "right" thing. When I got into the business, clients used to ask me to provide them with the actual correct answer to their tax questions. They actually wanted me to analyze the applicable law and come up with my best interpretation of what would be sustained in court. They did not want contentious audits. They did not want to end up in court. But all that changed during the period I practiced for a number of reasons. My clients were mostly large corporations. One major change was that top management started grading the corporate tax department as a "profit center." If a corporate tax director wanted to continue up the management ladder and get bonuses he/she had to provide an effective tax rate at least equal to other companies in the same business. And if they really wanted to prosper in their careers they had to "beat" the competition. Thus began the race for lower and lower effective tax rates. Tax directors no longer asked or even cared about the "right" answer, Now I was asked "What can we get away with?" I was no longer asked to analyze the law alone, I was asked to analyze the law in light of the government's declining ability to audit a multinational organization and their declining enforcement capability, their increasing propensity to settle contentious issues on reasonably favorable terms and determine how close to the line the business could cut it without sending anyone to jail or getting embarrassed in the newspapers. In short, how much cheating could they expect to get away with?

When I reached my mandatory retirement age, I was offered lots of other consulting positions. Many of my former partners took them and are still in the business. I found I could not. I could no longer stand to personally profit from selling sleazy colorable tax positions. Luckily I had never lived extravagantly and was able to live without working.

This brings me back to David. I do not detect in his writings the fervent anarchist beliefs of the true tax denier. He doesn't strike me as a Larkin Rose, or Peter Hendrickson or Dr. Dino. He doesn't seem interested in collecting believers or starting a movement. He seems mainly interested in what he can get away with. He thinks he can make a case for not willfully cheating and thus avoid jail. He wants to throw smoke screens and deflect issues to delay and confuse. In short, like many today, he just out for himself and has basically no morals or ethics, other than taking care of himself. He believes that he has no responsibly whatsoever to the society he lives in or to those who have given him the opportunities he enjoys or the country he takes advantage of every day. Ethics... just a stupid word. David has is many respects made the same calculation that the tax directors have made. Because he doesn't have to avoid embarassing the shareholders or in the newspapers, he thinks he can draw the line at cheating big time. He thinks he can stay in the weeds and if ever caught he can tap dance, delay, deny, avoid his way out of serious trouble. He may be right. But it makes me very sad for him, our society, and our country. His biggest mistake was coming here because he has drawn attention to himself. But he just couldn't help himself. He just HAD to brag on how he was beating the system and show how he is smarter than all the "experts." To the extent he is "thankful" for what has been said to him here, it is because we showed him how and where to bolster his obfuscation.

Hell of a world we live in.