Hendrickson follower has Soc. Sec. benefits levied

[.]

Nestor, anyone? You know, where the USSC held over 50 years ago that SS payments are not a property right or protected by the 5th. Something about SS not being insurance or contractual and Congress being able to reduce or eliminate benefits at their whim.

The precise opposite of what "smudge" thinks is true. Which probably explains why none of the idiocy spouted by "smudge" was raised in DeLorme by either party -- you know, settled law and all that.

It's the Crackhead way. Be completely wrong on the law and then quote some decision that doesn't say anything you claim it does. What could possibly go wrong?

[Famspear]

Nestor, anyone?...

In Wackadooster World, it's not polite for them to mention court cases that are actually on point unless, in classic Hendricksonian fashion, they can try to argue that the court ruled exactly the opposite of what the court actually ruled.

[Famspear]

My take on Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960).... The main points (most of which are holdings by the Court):

1. Where no application for an interlocutory or permanent injunction has been made, the exercise of jurisdiction over a dispute regarding the validity of an Act of Congress under the Constitution by only one judge rather than three at the U.S. District Court does not violate 28 USC section 2282.

2. The right to receive Social Security benefit payments is not an "accrued property right" to which an individual can be deemed to have been deprived under section 202(n) of the Social Security Act (codified at 42 USC section 402(n), relating in relevant part to termination of rights to receive Social Security benefit payments where the beneficiary is deported under section 241(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 USC section 1251(a), on grounds specified in section 202(n)).

3. The right to receive Social Security benefit payments is not the kind of right where every defeasance of that right would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

4. Section 202(n) of the Social Security Act does not violate the constitutional protection of the Due Process Clause limiting the power of Congress to modify a statute in a way that constitutes arbitrary government action manifesting a patently arbitrary classification, utterly lacking in rational justification.

5. Section 202(n) of the Social Security Act does not violate the provision of Article I, section 9, clause 3 of the Constitution prohibiting an ex post facto law.

6. Section 202(n) of the Social Security Act does not violate the provision of Article I, section 9, clause 3 of the Constitution prohibiting a bill of attainder.

7. Section 202(n) of the Social Security Act does not violate Article III, section 2 clause 3 of the Constitution, relating to the right, in a criminal case, to a trial by jury in the state where the charged crime is alleged to have been committed.

8. Section 202(n) of the Social Security Act does not violate the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, relating to a right to trial in a criminal case.

[notorial dissent]

It's not so much that "they can try ", they do "argue that the court ruled exactly the opposite of what the court actually ruled" all the time, and lose all the time, and then whine and wonder why. There really doesn't seem to be a learning curve on this, just more of a .

[fortinbras]

The debt (or overpayment or whatever) owed to the federal govt is the issue that gets due process in court. Once it's decided in the govt's favor, the govt's method of collecting is pretty much the govt's own decision.

[LPC]

My take on Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960).... The main points (most of which are holdings by the Court):

[snip]

2. The right to receive Social Security benefit payments is not an "accrued property right" to which an individual can be deemed to have been deprived under section 202(n) of the Social Security Act (codified at 42 USC section 402(n), relating in relevant part to termination of rights to receive Social Security benefit payments where the beneficiary is deported under section 241(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 USC section 1251(a), on grounds specified in section 202(n)).

[snip]

I can't imagine how Flemming v. Nestor could possibly be relevant to the validity of an IRS levy on Social Security benefits.

The whole point of a levy is to seize the property of the taxpayer, so the claim the Social Security benefits were vested property rights would simple confirm the power of the IRS to seize them.

Conversely, if Social Security benefits are *not* an "accrued property right," then the taxpayer can't complain if they are seized because the taxpayer never really had any rights anyway.

So it seems like, on the issue of whether or not Social Security benefits are a form of "property" protected by the 5th Amendment, it's heads the IRS wins, and tails the taxpayer loses.

(And section 202(n) of the Social Security Act has to do with denial of benefits because of membership in the Communist Party, which also has nothing to do with IRS levies.)

[Famspear]

User "smudge" still can't figure out what a "manual levy" is:

Well, this [attached PDF file; link not reproduced] is a reply [from the Internal Revenue Service] to a letter I wrote while waiting for a reply from Ms Aiello [at the IRS], who has transferred my correspondence with her to someone [at the IRS] in Ogden. This letter is from [the IRS in] Fresno with no mention of the correspondence to Ms Aiello. I still don't know what the "manual wage levy" is that the writer is referring to. Also the writer has tried to tie the different levies together, one is a SSA levy the other was a bank levy and fails to address IRM 5.11.7.2.7. I've read that paragraph a few times and each time I am amazed at the way the writer has tried to spin it. Haven't formulated a response to the bank levy yet, but it's probably going to be the same as my first.

EDIT: Just did a little research, PL105-34, section 1024 does not specify any particular type of levy.....Methinks these people just make things up as they see fit to avoid having to return peoples property to them.....

http://www.codebusters.org/post2095.html#p2095

Poor guy.

Yes, "smudge," section 1024 (an amendment to section 6331 of the Internal Revenue Code) does indeed specify a particular type of levy. The text of the statute is very specific:

(h) CONTINUING LEVY ON CERTAIN PAYMENTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The effect of a levy on specified payments to or received by a taxpayer shall be continuous from the date such levy is first made until such levy is released. Notwithstanding section 6334, such continuous levy shall attach to up to 15 percent of any specified payment due to the taxpayer.

(2) SPECIFIED PAYMENT.—For the purposes of paragraph (1), the term ‘specified payment’ means—

(A) any Federal payment other than a payment for which eligibility is based on the income or assets (or both) of a payee,

(B) any payment described in paragraph (4), (7), (9), or (11) of section 6334(a), and

(C) any annuity or pension payment under the Railroad Retirement Act or benefit under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act.

(italics added).

The statute is very explicit.

And, if the levy conforms to this statutory language, it's a "continuous levy." If the levy does not conform to this language, it's not a "continuous levy". Obviously, these two kinds of levy are not the same.

And obviously, a "manual" wage levy is one that is not "continuous." The IRS is not "making it up."

From the Internal Revenue Manual:

5.17.3.4.1 (01-07-2011)
Property and Rights to Property

[ . . . ]
Although property acquired post-assessment is subject to the tax lien, a levy reaches only property and rights to property existing at the time of the levy, or property encumbered with the federal tax lien as of the time of the levy. The exception is for continuous levies, discussed in IRM 5.17.3.4.2, below.

[ . . . .]

5.17.3.4.2 (01-07-2011)
Effect of Levy

1. IRC § 6331(b) provides that except for the continuing levy on salary or wages provided for in IRC § 6331(e) and a levy on certain government payments provided for in IRC § 6331(h), a levy shall extend only to property possessed or obligations existing at the time of the levy. Thus, service of a levy or notice of levy upon the taxpayer or a third person, respectively, results in a seizure of property or rights to property in possession of either party at the time of service of the levy. Should property come into possession of the taxpayer or third party later, another levy must be made to seize the property, regardless of the fact that the federal tax lien attaches automatically to after-acquired property. Rev. Rul. 55-210, 1955-1 C.B. 544. If, for example, a levy is made upon the bank account of a delinquent taxpayer and the bank surrenders the balance in the account at the time the levy is made, this levy has no effect upon subsequent deposits made in the bank by the taxpayer. Subsequent deposits may be reached only by subsequent levies. IRC § 6331(c) provides for successive levies upon property of the taxpayer until the amount due, together with all expenses, is fully paid.

[ . . . ]

3. IRC § 6331(e) provides, however, that the effect of a levy on salary or wages payable to or received by a taxpayer is continuous from the date the levy is first made until the levy is released under IRC § 6343.

[ . . . ]

4. IRC § 6331(h) provides for a continuous levy on certain federal payments, including Social Security benefits. The levy attaches up to 15% of the payment (and up to 100% in the case of vendors of goods or services sold or leased to the federal government). The power to make an IRC § 6331(h) levy has not been delegated to field personnel. The IRS makes an IRC § 6331(h) levy by sending an electronic transmission [i.e., this is not a "manual" levy] to Financial Management Service, another agency within Treasury. These provisions are exceptions to the rule that the levy only reaches obligations that are in existence at the time the levy is made....

--from the Internal Revenue Manual, Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Dep't of the Treasury (italics in original; large font added).

[Famspear]

It may be that "smudge" thinks that the term "manual levy" is a term that should appear in the statute itself, and he can't find the term.

A manual levy is simply a levy that is not a non-manual levy. A non-manual levy includes one that is executed electronically. So, a levy that is not executed electronically is a "manual" levy.

This is not rocket science, "smudge."

[Pottapaug1938]

I used to know Manuel Levy. His daughter went to high school with me before they moved away.

[Famspear]

I used to know Manuel Levy. His daughter went to high school with me before they moved away.

Oh, boy...... And this is just Sunday night as I write this! This is the just the beginning of the week! What are the jokes going to be like by Thursday or Friday??

[.]

Will people who do stupid things ever figure out why they're derided, ridiculed and laughed at?

Probably not. Although, laughing at their antics might be more effective than quoting the law or the courts. Or even monetary sanctions, considering that rationality doesn't count.

The sorry (laughable?) state of the human condition, specifically of those who constitute its outliers is what will keep this site in business forever.

Repeal all federal taxation? The nuts would just migrate to the state level. Abolish state taxes? See you at the local level. And so it goes.

On with the humor. There is an unlimited supply of stupidity and legal provisions which can be misquoted, misinterpreted or misconstrued. Or, when all else fails, lied about.

[The Observer]

It may be that "smudge" thinks that the term "manual levy" is a term that should appear in the statute itself, and he can't find the term.

A manual levy is simply a levy that is not a non-manual levy. A non-manual levy includes one that is executed electronically. So, a levy that is not executed electronically is a "manual" levy.

This is not rocket science, "smudge."

While that would have been true 18 or so years ago (a manual levy at that time meant that the revenue officer had to use a typewriter to complete the 668-A or 668-W levy form - and all levies issued by a revenue officer were manual, regardless of whether they were continuous or not), now that revenue officer's cases are primarily electronic, all levies issued are systemically generated. The word "manual" has become passe. One might argue that the phrase "manual levy" has become a synonym for non-continuous levy, but I have not heard it used in that context. Form 668-A is used to denote a levy that is being issued as a one-time levy and the 668-W for a continuous levy.

Sometimes you will hear the phrase "manual lien" or "manual lien release" meaning not that the revenue officer will have to prepare a notice of federal tax lien or release (again this is done electronically) but that the revenue officer will have to visit the recorder's office or court house in order for the document to be recorded rather than relying on the electronic system that the IRS uses.

[grixit]

Automatic Levy:

:Start
IF Balance_Owed>0 THEN DO Continue_Levy ELSE DO End_Levy;
End;


Manual Levy:

:Start
DO POPUP "Continue Levy for this Taxpayer (Y/N)?" READ Answer
UNTIL Answer IN "YyNn";
IF Answer IN "Yy" THEN DO Continue_Levy ELSE DO End_Levy;
End;

[The Observer]

Manual Levy:

:Start
DO POPUP "Continue Levy for this Taxpayer (Y/N)?" READ Answer
UNTIL Answer IN "YyNn";
IF Answer IN "Yy" THEN DO Continue_Levy ELSE DO End_Levy;
End;

Unfortunately, this would be the wrong programming logic for a "manual" levy per the discussion above. In this instance since the program is equating the term "manual" with "continuous" it is making the same error that "smudge" is making. if the program was actually responsible for determining if a manual levy was to be created, then it should be something like this:

:Start
DO POPUP "Is this a manual Levy for this Taxpayer (Y/N)?" READ Answer
UNTIL Answer IN "YyNn";
IF Answer IN "Yy" THEN DO Tell_User_To_Type_Their_Own_Damn_Levy ELSE DO End_Levy;
End;[

[The Observer]

This letter is from [the IRS in] Fresno with no mention of the correspondence to Ms Aiello. I still don't know what the "manual wage levy" is that the writer is referring to

This is the other issue that I saw but forgot to address. One would think that it is peculiar that the IRS employee would refer to a "manual wage levy" when that same terminology does not appear in the IRM. The clue to all of this was the fact that smudge's "manual levy" was attaching to his Social Security payments. In the old days, there was never a systemic levy by the IRS automtated collection system of SS benefits; any decision to levy those benefits had to be made by a human being. And that meant that a manual levy had to be prepared to reach those benefits and the appropriate approvals secured.

Since then, Congress got concerned that the IRS was not doing enough to deal with non-compliant senior citizens and authorized a systemic levy of SS benefits, amounting to 15% rather than the typicl levy attachment less standard exemption and any allowable dependent exemptions. Even so, if the IRS wants to take more, it still requires a human decision to do so as opposed to letting the machinery increase the amount. And if a IRS employee decides that the IRS should not be collecting from the taxpayer (due to hardship or other sensitive issues) then they have the authority to turn off the automatic levy as well.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Oh dear gawd...

You go away for a while and someone hasn't pounded a stake through Hendrickson's heart yet!

[Famspear]

Doktor! Where the heck have you been????!!!????

[Doktor Avalanche]

Doktor! Where the heck have you been????!!!????

Well, friend Famspear, I've been wandering the desert for some time in search of the promised land...oh, wait, that was somebody else.

I just took a little break that turned into an extended hiatus concentrating on my music and my wife.

How's things with you?

[Famspear]

Doktor! Where the heck have you been????!!!????

Well, friend Famspear, I've been wandering the desert for some time in search of the promised land...oh, wait, that was somebody else.

I just took a little break that turned into an extended hiatus concentrating on my music and my wife.

How's things with you?

Purdy good. Same ol' thang, over heah in Texas....

[JamesVincent]

Oh dear gawd...

You go away for a while and someone hasn't pounded a stake through Hendrickson's heart yet!

You picked a good time to return Dok, been kinda boring around here lately.