How to get my

[chronistra]

So there is no such thing as the admin procedure act or notary protest either I take it?

A notary protest is a real thing, yes; it's an old-fashioned procedure, but still on the books in many states (see, e.g., Missouri Revised Statutes 490.560: "The certificate of a notary public, protesting a bill of exchange or negotiable promissory note, without as well as within this state, setting forth the demand of payment, refusal, protest therefor, and notice of dishonor to parties thereto, and the manner of each of said acts, and verified by his affidavit, shall, in all courts in this state, be prima facie evidence of such acts; provided, such certificate be filed in the cause for at least fifteen days before the trial thereof.").

It's the equivalent of stamping "NSF" on a bad check, and is only applicable to checks and other negotiable instruments. What are you thinking is the relevance of notary protests to taxes?

[Pottapaug1938]

So there is no such thing as the admin procedure act or notary protest either I take it?

A notary protest is a real thing, yes; it's an old-fashioned procedure, but still on the books in many states (see, e.g., Missouri Revised Statutes 490.560: "The certificate of a notary public, protesting a bill of exchange or negotiable promissory note, without as well as within this state, setting forth the demand of payment, refusal, protest therefor, and notice of dishonor to parties thereto, and the manner of each of said acts, and verified by his affidavit, shall, in all courts in this state, be prima facie evidence of such acts; provided, such certificate be filed in the cause for at least fifteen days before the trial thereof.").

It's the equivalent of stamping "NSF" on a bad check, and is only applicable to checks and other negotiable instruments. What are you thinking is the relevance of notary protests to taxes?

He isn't "thinking". He is simply playing the same kind of troll-game which we have seen many times before on Quatloos. He will never come right out and say what he means; instead he dashes off meaningless posts in the hope that he will get the answer he seeks. Here, he mentions some Administrative Procedure Act, and the concept of notary protest, without ever explaining why either thing matters. If he could at least construct a cogent argument, or attempt to confront responses to his post with anything approaching the factual (not factoidal), I'd at least give him credit for trying; but I've yet to see a coherent post from him.

[AndyK]

Thanks, I plan to decode my IMF and then send an affidavit to my district director to tell him of my findings, of course if I am wrong then he will rebut my affidavit.

The person now acting in the capacity of the abolished office of District Director will not even see your affidavit.

One of his staff (possessing the duly delegated authority to act for the executive on specified matters) will process your request.

One definite thing WILL happen: An electronic copy of your material plus the response will be added to the correspondence file associated with your IRS records. It will remain there forever. And, should you ever, in the future, engage in some form of tax evasion, it will be legally acceptable evidence against you in whatever trial ensues.

The other thing which might happen is that you will receive a form letter response telling you that your letter was received and that the IRS determined that no action was necessary.

The one thing which will NOT happen would be you receiving any kind of response rebutting your nonsense.

You have to realize that the IRS only does what is legally required of it. There is absolutely nothing in 26USC or any other laws governing the IRS placing a requirement on it to "rebut" any fanciful material they receive.

If you don't believe me or any of the other responses you receive her, I suggest that you write your questions concerning the legal requirements for IRS actions to the Chief Counsel of the IRS, 1111 Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC.

So, having exhausted this particular long-since-disproved tax protestor theory, what's your next move? I suggest OMB numbers. They are interesting and another historically fallow field for tax protestors.

[Patriotdiscussions]

So there is no such thing as the admin procedure act or notary protest either I take it?

There is a federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act. It doesn't say anything about unrebutted affidavits, though.

There is-- or at least used to be, I haven't heard of it much in recent times-- something called a "notarial protest," but it has to do with promissory notes and other negotiable instruments, not with taxes.

(h) Any party to a proceeding in which an administrative law judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings has final order authority may move for a summary final order when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. A summary final order shall be rendered if the administrative law judge determines from the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, that no genuine issue as to any material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled as a matter of law to the entry of a final order. A summary final order shall consist of findings of fact, if any, conclusions of law, a disposition or penalty, if applicable, and any other information required by law to be contained in the final order.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... 20.57.html

[Patriotdiscussions]

So there is no such thing as the admin procedure act or notary protest either I take it?

A notary protest is a real thing, yes; it's an old-fashioned procedure, but still on the books in many states (see, e.g., Missouri Revised Statutes 490.560: "The certificate of a notary public, protesting a bill of exchange or negotiable promissory note, without as well as within this state, setting forth the demand of payment, refusal, protest therefor, and notice of dishonor to parties thereto, and the manner of each of said acts, and verified by his affidavit, shall, in all courts in this state, be prima facie evidence of such acts; provided, such certificate be filed in the cause for at least fifteen days before the trial thereof.").

It's the equivalent of stamping "NSF" on a bad check, and is only applicable to checks and other negotiable instruments. What are you thinking is the relevance of notary protests to taxes?

I'm not, it was just a question I had about promissory note disputes.

[Pottapaug1938]

There is a federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act. It doesn't say anything about unrebutted affidavits, though.

There is-- or at least used to be, I haven't heard of it much in recent times-- something called a "notarial protest," but it has to do with promissory notes and other negotiable instruments, not with taxes.

(h) Any party to a proceeding in which an administrative law judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings has final order authority may move for a summary final order when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. A summary final order shall be rendered if the administrative law judge determines from the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, that no genuine issue as to any material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled as a matter of law to the entry of a final order. A summary final order shall consist of findings of fact, if any, conclusions of law, a disposition or penalty, if applicable, and any other information required by law to be contained in the final order.[/quote]

Okay. You're trying. However, this act doesn't do you any good. All it says that affidavits can be considered when deciding if a genuine issue exists regarding a give material fact. It says NOTHING about an unrebutted affidavit standing as truth. Like other pieces of evidence, they stand or fall on their own merits, or lack thereof.

[chronistra]

(h) Any party to a proceeding in which an administrative law judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings has final order authority may move for a summary final order when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. A summary final order shall be rendered if the administrative law judge determines from the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, that no genuine issue as to any material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled as a matter of law to the entry of a final order. A summary final order shall consist of findings of fact, if any, conclusions of law, a disposition or penalty, if applicable, and any other information required by law to be contained in the final order.

Okay. Are you a party to a proceeding in which an ALJ of the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings has final order authority?

If you are, AND if the IRS is a party to that same proceeding, AND if you submit your affidavits to the ALJ with your other pleadings, AND if the judge is considering a summary final order, this statute is probably relevant.

Mailing an affidavit to a random IRS official, however, doesn't fit the set of circumstances to which this statute applies.

[Patriotdiscussions]

4-5-313. Rules of evidence - Affidavits - Official notice.

In contested cases:

(1) The agency shall admit and give probative effect to evidence admissible in a court, and when necessary to ascertain facts not reasonably susceptible to proof under the rules of court, evidence not admissible thereunder may be admitted if it is of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent men in the conduct of their affairs. The agency shall give effect to the rules of privilege recognized by law and to agency statutes protecting the confidentiality of certain records, and shall exclude evidence which in its judgment is irrelevant, immaterial or unduly repetitious;

(2) At any time not less than ten (10) days prior to a hearing or a continued hearing, any party shall deliver to the opposing party a copy of any affidavit such party proposes to introduce in evidence, together with a notice in the form provided in subdivision (4). Unless the opposing party, within seven (7) days after delivery, delivers to the proponent a request to cross-examine an affiant, the opposing party's right to cross-examination of such affiant is waived and the affidavit, if introduced in evidence, shall be given the same effect as if the affiant had testified orally. If an opportunity to cross-examine an affiant is not afforded after a proper request is made as provided in this subdivision (2), the affidavit shall not be admitted into evidence. "Delivery" for purposes of this section means actual receipt;


http://www.tncia.org/tca-uapa.html

[Pottapaug1938]

What are you thinking is the relevance of notary protests to taxes?

I'm not, it was just a question I had about promissory note disputes.

That premise has nothing to do with the original premise of your thread.

[Pottapaug1938]

4-5-313. Rules of evidence - Affidavits - Official notice.

In contested cases:

(1) The agency shall admit and give probative effect to evidence admissible in a court, and when necessary to ascertain facts not reasonably susceptible to proof under the rules of court, evidence not admissible thereunder may be admitted if it is of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent men in the conduct of their affairs. The agency shall give effect to the rules of privilege recognized by law and to agency statutes protecting the confidentiality of certain records, and shall exclude evidence which in its judgment is irrelevant, immaterial or unduly repetitious;

(2) At any time not less than ten (10) days prior to a hearing or a continued hearing, any party shall deliver to the opposing party a copy of any affidavit such party proposes to introduce in evidence, together with a notice in the form provided in subdivision (4). Unless the opposing party, within seven (7) days after delivery, delivers to the proponent a request to cross-examine an affiant, the opposing party's right to cross-examination of such affiant is waived and the affidavit, if introduced in evidence, shall be given the same effect as if the affiant had testified orally. If an opportunity to cross-examine an affiant is not afforded after a proper request is made as provided in this subdivision (2), the affidavit shall not be admitted into evidence. "Delivery" for purposes of this section means actual receipt;

http://www.tncia.org/tca-uapa.html

This does you no good. It deals with the evidentiary value of affidavits, and says NOTHING about unrebutted affidavits being accepted as fact.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Procedural Requirements Governing Contested Cases
Adjudication generally occurs when an agency refuses to license a person or entity, revokes an existing license or permit, assesses an administrative penalty, or otherwise takes agency action affecting a person or an entity’s legal interests. A license includes any “state agency permit, certificate, approval, registration or similar form of permission required by law.”6 The APA refers to adjudicative proceedings as “contested cases.” According to the APA, a contested case is a proceeding “in which the legal rights, duties, or privilegoes of a party are to be determined by an agency after an opportunity for adjudicative hearing.”7

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/AG ... nlawhb.pdf


Now correct me if I am wrong, but is tax court an admin(art 1 or art 4 not art 3 court)court?

[AndyK]

Could someone please explain to me what a publication by the Attorney General of Texas, addressing three TEXAS laws has to do proceedings with or within the IRS

The crickets are waiting....

[JamesVincent]

(2) At any time not less than ten (10) days prior to a hearing or a continued hearing, any party shall deliver to the opposing party a copy of any affidavit such party proposes to introduce in evidence, together with a notice in the form provided in subdivision (4). Unless the opposing party, within seven (7) days after delivery, delivers to the proponent a request to cross-examine an affiant, the opposing party's right to cross-examination of such affiant is waived and the affidavit, if introduced in evidence, shall be given the same effect as if the affiant had testified orally. If an opportunity to cross-examine an affiant is not afforded after a proper request is made as provided in this subdivision (2), the affidavit shall not be admitted into evidence. "Delivery" for purposes of this section means actual receipt;


http://www.tncia.org/tca-uapa.html

I would imagine that is more along the lines of discovery, not some fancy way to force someone to accept. And note that it says unless the opposing party objects. So, yes, in this specific circumstance, an affidavit that has been filed and not been objected to can be introduced into evidence to be used at trial. Note, you are not the one that determines that, a judge or a master will still rule on its admissibility. You could send out the "wham, bam, thank you ma'am" of all affidavits and a judge could still rule it inadmissible.

[AndyK]

4-5-313. Rules of evidence - Affidavits - Official notice.
http://www.tncia.org/tca-uapa.html

Same question as in previous post regarding Tennessee law.

Hint for PD: The IRS operates according to FEDERAL law 26USC and the associated published regulations. State laws don't count except in certain special cases such as bankruptcies, siezure and sale of assets, and a couple of others.

If you want an answer regarding the IRS, post relevant FEDERAL laws.

[Famspear]

Procedural Requirements Governing Contested Cases
Adjudication generally occurs when an agency refuses to license a person or entity, revokes an existing license or permit, assesses an administrative penalty, or otherwise takes agency action affecting a person or an entity’s legal interests. A license includes any “state agency permit, certificate, approval, registration or similar form of permission required by law.”6 The APA refers to adjudicative proceedings as “contested cases.” According to the APA, a contested case is a proceeding “in which the legal rights, duties, or privilegoes of a party are to be determined by an agency after an opportunity for adjudicative hearing.”7

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/AG ... nlawhb.pdf


Now correct me if I am wrong, but is tax court an admin(art 1 or art 4 not art 3 court)court?

You don't need to worry about what kind of court the U.S. Tax Court is. We've already answered that question over and over and over and over and over again.

From the U.S. Supreme Court:

The Tax Court exercises judicial power to the exclusion of any other function. It is neither advocate nor rulemaker. As an adjudicative body, it construes statutes passed by Congress and regulations promulgated by the Internal Revenue Service. It does not make political decisions. The Tax Court's function and role in the federal judicial scheme closely resemble those of the federal district courts, which indisputably are "Courts of Law." Furthermore, the Tax Court exercises its judicial power in much the same way as the federal district courts exercise theirs...... [ . . . ]

The Tax Court remains independent of the Executive and Legislative Branches. Its decisions are not subject to review by either the Congress or the President. Nor has Congress made Tax Court decisions subject to review in the federal district courts. Rather, like the judgments of the district courts, the decisions of the Tax Court are appealable only to the regional United States courts of appeals, with ultimate review in this Court [the U.S. Supreme Court]. The courts of appeals, moreover, review those decisions "in the same manner and to the same extent as decisions of the district courts in civil actions tried without a jury."

--from Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991).

What kind of court the U.S. Tax Court is has nothing to do with whether you owe a U.S. federal income tax. Neither do any of the quotes you've been posting.

[JamesVincent]

I thought Freytag was summed up as; The tax court has all the power it needs to do it's specific job, The end.

[Famspear]

One of the hangups from which many tax protesters suffer -- and Patriotdiscussions is an example of someone who suffers -- is the agonizing question of whether the U.S. Tax Court is an Article I court or, alternatively, an Article III court or, alternatively, a territorial court (Article IV).

Of course, the Tax Court is an Article I court. That means, essentially, that its judges serve specific terms (15 years). By contrast, Article III court judges serve "during good Behaviour" -- essentially for life unless they resign or are removed from office by Congress through the impeachment process.

Article I versus Article III has nothing to do with what the tax protesters are thinking.

[Pottapaug1938]

Procedural Requirements Governing Contested Cases
Adjudication generally occurs when an agency refuses to license a person or entity, revokes an existing license or permit, assesses an administrative penalty, or otherwise takes agency action affecting a person or an entity’s legal interests. A license includes any “state agency permit, certificate, approval, registration or similar form of permission required by law.”6 The APA refers to adjudicative proceedings as “contested cases.” According to the APA, a contested case is a proceeding “in which the legal rights, duties, or privilegoes of a party are to be determined by an agency after an opportunity for adjudicative hearing.”7

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/AG ... nlawhb.pdf


Now correct me if I am wrong, but is tax court an admin(art 1 or art 4 not art 3 court)court?

What if it is -- or isn't -- and what relevance does it have to your original post?

[AndyK]

Are the goal posts moving again?

[Pottapaug1938]

Are the goal posts moving again?

They've been on the move since the original post.