Yet another CTC loser gets slammed

[Joey Smith]

MArchitect


1 Posts
Posted - 09/27/2007 : 11:34:19 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm looking for some help. My wife and I received (3-one for each year we ammended) 3176C letters from the IRS stating our tax returns are frivolous. We then received (6 - one for me and one for my wife for each year) penalty letters with the $500 fine.
We ammended 3 past years returns amounting to a $1000 fine per year. This totals $3000 in IRS fines.

We have responded to the IRS with the enclosed letter.
I looked hard on this web site for help with the language and thankfully I found what I needed.

But my question is: What are the chances the IRS will drop the fines totalling $3000? Pete seems to reccomend that I take this all the way to court. I don't have the resources to try to settle a claim with the IRS over $3000.

Has anyone been successful with the letter writing campaign and has the IRS dropped the request to pay the fines?

I know the tone of this site is to fight the battle and hang tough and do whatever it takes. But that might not make good business sense. A $3000 fine could possibly escalate to who knows what.

I would really appreciate anyones past experiences in this matter.

Below, I've enclosed the letter I sent to the IRS
Thanks. (note: much of the language was taken from research done on this site)

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Fresno, CA 93888-0010
Ref: Caller ID: <<>> IRS: <<>>
Tax year: <<>>

IRS,

We are writing in response to the subject Form Letter 3176C Ref: <<>> from Dennis Parizek (copy enclosed).

The amended TY <<>> Return is correct to the best of our knowledge and belief. Please refer to the signed jurats on our TY<<>> form 1040x, and the singed jurat on our TY<<>> Form 4852.

Please be reminded that the term “frivolous” is a statutorily defined legal term (26USC§6702). To declare a return “frivolous” is to assert that it explicitly meets the specific conditions of that statute, yet you failed to identify what you believe is “frivolous” about the return. It is quite easily demonstrated that the returns are proper under the law and do not meet the statutory definition of “frivolous” (which can be summarized as “self-contradictory”).

It would appear that you are evaluating third-party information external to my properly prepared and executed return to make your determination. May we remind you that the 4852 forms we submitted to correct erroneous reports by payers were executed under oath and attached to the Form 1040x for each of the years in question, that the determination of “frivolous” is based on my “self-assessment” and the information provided “on its face” (within the documentation that we personally submitted). Our returns do not meet any of the criteria defined by 26USC§6702(a)(1) and are, by definition, valid returns.

Paragraph 2 of your letter goes on to. “…inform you of the potential consequences of the position you have taken and to offer you an opportunity to correct your position within 30 days…”, yet the letter fails to identify what you believe needs to be “corrected”.

This is followed by an “offer”, in a later paragraph, that, “If you send us a correct return(s), we will disregard the previous document(s) filed and not assess the frivolous return penalty.” This seems to be a overt attempt on your behalf to coerce me into changing my testimony……written testimony that I submitted under penalty of perjury, the content of which is true and correct (to the best of my knowledge and belief) as to every material matter under the law as it is written.

We reject your attempt to categorize our legitimate filing of accurate tax returns as a “failure or refusal to comply with tax laws” or as an “appeal” based on any of the stated “issues” or “grounds”. No such argument was ever put forth or inferred by us then or now and the insinuation that any such “issues” or “grounds” were raised by us is a willful misrepresentation of the facts. The facts are that we simply and accurately filed tax returns based on the law as it is written and we expect and demand that the returns be honored and processed according to those laws.

You offer us an opportunity to “correct” these returns. Assuming that there was something “incorrect” about our returns, the letter fails to specify what Mr. Parizek believe is “incorrect”. Given the complete lack of specificity as to your “issues” with our returns, how can we possibly be expected to discern what you believe needs to be corrected? It is apparent to us that your actions are intended to do nothing more than impede or delay the lawful processing of our returns and issuing refunds.
We further demand that you immediately ABATE all proposed penalties, fines, interest charges, or other inappropriate actions on your part, planned or posted against us for the years in question.
This is our final request and demand for the IRS and its employees to abide by the law.

Respectfully,


richardf614


752 Posts
Posted - 09/27/2007 : 2:51:19 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6703 states that the burden of proof is on the IRS, ask for a hearing
in writing. 6702 has no enforcing regulations.

You are making a record in case you need to go to court. Everything you do with the IRS must be approached with the assumption that you will end up in court.

If, they refuse a hearing on this matter, you are being denied your due process rights.

The letter is fine, follow it up requesting a hearing. Make them prove
everything.

[The Operative]

Has anyone been successful with the letter writing campaign and has the IRS dropped the request to pay the fines?

No

I know the tone of this site is to fight the battle and hang tough and do whatever it takes. But that might not make good business sense. A $3000 fine could possibly escalate to who knows what.

Ah, a flicker of sanity.

I would really appreciate anyones past experiences in this matter.

You are looking in the wrong place.

[grixit]

Please be reminded that the term “frivolous” is a statutorily defined legal term (26USC§6702). To declare a return “frivolous” is to assert that it explicitly meets the specific conditions of that statute, yet you failed to identify what you believe is “frivolous” about the return. It is quite easily demonstrated that the returns are proper under the law and do not meet the statutory definition of “frivolous” (which can be summarized as “self-contradictory”).

Sorry. "Frivolous" does not mean "self contradictory". It means "determined to be totally wrong many times and spelled out in an explicit warning". You don't get to redefine the terms.

It would appear that you are evaluating third-party information external to my properly prepared and executed return to make your determination.

If you attach something to the return it becomes part of the return.

May we remind you that the 4852 forms we submitted to correct erroneous reports by payers were executed under oath

If something a is frivolous, a jurat won't change that. But it will make you subject to perjury charges if the feds don't belkieve your convoluted "income is not income" rationalization constitutes good faith,

We further demand that you immediately ABATE all proposed penalties, fines, interest charges, or other inappropriate actions on your part, planned or posted against us for the years in question.

Hmm. You "demand" that they "ABATE", what do you expect that to accomplish?

[Dezcad]

Everything you do with the IRS must be approached with the assumption that you will end up in court.

This is undoubtedly true if you persist in making frivolous, baseless arguments - just ask Pete where he ended up.

With any luck, for you it will be merely a civil action. For many others a criminal action is their ultimate fate.

[.]

the singed jurat

The secret is out. Crispy is what makes it work.

[webhick]

Pete seems to reccomend that I take this all the way to court.

Pete recommends it because it helps delay the inevitable result of losing the whole argument and by extension, you coming back and calling him a con-artist.

I would really appreciate anyones past experiences in this matter.

You won't hear it. Darth Hendrickson has jettisoned them all out the airlock.

The amended TY <<>> Return is correct to the best of our knowledge and belief. Please refer to the signed jurats on our TY<<>> form 1040x, and the singed jurat on our TY<<>> Form 4852.

Correct to the best of your knowledge and belief. Too bad the knowledge and belief is all tax protester rhetoric.

Please be reminded that the term “frivolous” is a statutorily defined legal term (26USC§6702). To declare a return “frivolous” is to assert that it explicitly meets the specific conditions of that statute, yet you failed to identify what you believe is “frivolous” about the return. It is quite easily demonstrated that the returns are proper under the law and do not meet the statutory definition of “frivolous” (which can be summarized as “self-contradictory”).

Aren't most CtC returns self-contradictory? I mean, they claim they had no wages but want the taxes removed from their wages refunded to them.

The facts are that we simply and accurately filed tax returns based on the law as it is written and we expect and demand that the returns be honored and processed according to those laws.

More like based on a gross misinterpretation of the law by a tax protesting guru who's scammed you into believing this tripe and passing it off as something you've "researched."

We further demand that you immediately ABATE all proposed penalties, fines, interest charges, or other inappropriate actions on your part, planned or posted against us for the years in question.

Everyone loves it when you make demands to have fines and penalties removed for shit you deserved to get fined and penalized on.

This is our final request and demand for the IRS and its employees to abide by the law.

The IRS *is* abiding by the law. Just not the gross misinterpretation you want to believe based on what someone else told you to think.

[ErsatzAnatchist]

The best advice you will ever not take:

[Disilloosianed]

Different CtCer, but I thought this was a choice little vignette too:

Erik

I received a letter that said the IRS wants to audit me for 2005. When I called the agent said it was mandatory that I show up to the appointment. Does anyone know if this is the case?

Thanks

richardf614

If, you want to give them all the ammo they need against you, do not show up!

You need to research the audit procedure, you have many options available to derail this process.


macwildstar

By law, You must show up.
By law, you do NOT have to show them ANYTHING without a court order.

So show up, then demand to see the court order. THEN when they fail to show you one, stand for your rights not to self incrminate, and tell them that without a court order you are refusing to give them anything other that what they already have - your name.

IMFResearch

Did you receive a summons? Is there a form or letter number? What is the title of the letter? Has there been an assessment? Did you receive a notice of deficiency? Or, is this a 30-Day Letter?

If you do not cooperate with the audit, you forfeit your opportunity to dispute the facts of the case, and you default the liability.

If this is an "examination hearing" prior to assessment, all the better. It gives you an opportunity to present facts you wish considered.

If it's an audit after self-assessment, they're giving you an opportunity to justify the deductions and credits you took on the return.

You need to know what rights of appeal you have after the audit.

richardf614

I would respond with a letter to agent affirming your intent to be present.
I would also request that they have certain things available at the meeting. The main item needed by them is a delegation of authority order signed by the Secretary.

They will not have this (they never do) and without this the meeting cannot go forward. You do not know what authority they have, you could
be having a meeting with the janitor as far as you know!

By requesting this order ahead of time, they know you will be requiring it. If, I am wrong here, someone chime in.


richardf614

Watch this video and you will receive information to your situation.
Start at 31:00 minutes and he will explain to you information related to an audit.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... &plindex=0

Good video. Hope this helps.


Erik


Thanks for the help everyone. When I asked for the delegation of authority order signed by the Secretary the agent turned red with anger. When I got home from work there was a summons taped to my door.


IMFResearch


So, you jumped out of the frying pan into the fire?

If you decide not to comply with the summons, the IRS will seek a motion to show cause from district court, and you will be invited to tell the judge why you choose not to comply.

"Thanks for the help everyone!"

[LPC]

This is our final request and demand for the IRS and its employees to abide by the law.

Eeeeeek! Not that! Not THE DEMAND. Please don't make THE DEMAND. We'll do anything you want if you'll just take back THE DEMAND.

Seriously, I doubt that the IRS will even bother to tell them to pound sand. The next letter will be a notice of intent to levy to collect the $3,000.

[Imalawman]

Different CtCer, but I thought this was a choice little vignette too:

Thanks for the help everyone. When I asked for the delegation of authority order signed by the Secretary the agent turned red with anger. When I got home from work there was a summons taped to my door.

IMFResearch


So, you jumped out of the frying pan into the fire?

If you decide not to comply with the summons, the IRS will seek a motion to show cause from district court, and you will be invited to tell the judge why you choose not to comply.

"Thanks for the help everyone!"

Ha! This is classic. No doubt the TP views this as a victory. He shut down the audit! Yeah! oh wait...now I have to do what?....

[ASITStands]

This is our final request and demand for the IRS and its employees to abide by the law.

Eeeeeek! Not that! Not THE DEMAND. Please don't make THE DEMAND. We'll do anything you want if you'll just take back THE DEMAND.

Seriously, I doubt that the IRS will even bother to tell them to pound sand. The next letter will be a notice of intent to levy to collect the $3,000.

If only it was the actual *final* request and demand!

What's the odds there'll be another?

[Quixote]

Has anyone been successful with the letter writing campaign and has the IRS dropped the request to pay the fines?

Yes, but not with that letter.

The following might work:

***********************************************
Dear IRS:

I read a book called Cracking the Code. After reading it, I was convinced that I did not have taxable income and filed amended returns claiming a refund of all the tax I paid for the last three years. When I received your letters concerning the frivolous return penalties I talked to my family. They told me I was an idiot. I went to a tax professional. He told me that I had been misled. He's right. I was misled by a con man selling me on an idea that was too good to be true. The success stories he published on his webste losthorizons.com, complete with pictures of the refund checks, convinced me that his stuff was on the level.

Please consider reducing or waiving the penalties for filing frivolous returns. I was an idiot, but I've learned my lesson.

[hartley]

The following might work:

***********************************************
Dear IRS:

I read a book called Cracking the Code. After reading it, I was convinced that I did not have taxable income and filed amended returns claiming a refund of all the tax I paid for the last three years. When I received your letters concerning the frivolous return penalties I talked to my family. They told me I was an idiot. I went to a tax professional. He told me that I had been misled. He's right. I was misled by a con man selling me on an idea that was too good to be true. The success stories he published on his webste losthorizons.com, complete with pictures of the refund checks, convinced me that his stuff was on the level.

Please consider reducing or waiving the penalties for filing frivolous returns. I was an idiot, but I've learned my lesson.

Yeah, but that letter would mean admitting that CtC is wrong and they *gasp* might have to PAY TAXES. ohnoes!

That won't happen until they get off the Kool-Aid.

[Kimokeo]

I am just wondering...

Why is it $500?

I thought it was upped to $5,000?

[Famspear]

Kimokeo wrote:

I am just wondering...

Why is it $500?

I thought it was upped to $5,000?

The section 6702 penalty for taking a frivolous position on a tax return was indeed increased from $500 to $5,000. The amendment came from the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-432, sec. 407. The Internal Revenue Service has issued a list of positions that are considered to be "frivolous." See IRS Notice 2007-30, I.R.B. 2007-14 (March 15, 2007). In addition to providing a specific list, Notice 2007-30 essentially incorporates, by reference, frivolous positions described in various prior IRS pronouncements.

[Kimokeo]

"I'm looking for some help. My wife and I received (3-one for each year we ammended) 3176C letters from the IRS stating our tax returns are frivolous. We then received (6 - one for me and one for my wife for each year) penalty letters with the $500 fine.
We ammended 3 past years returns amounting to a $1000 fine per year. This totals $3000 in IRS fines. "


It could have been $30,000. That would be an eye-opener

[silversopp]

The increase probably only applies to frivilous returns filed after the law changed.

[Famspear]

Editor silversopp is right. Subsection (f) of section 407 of the Act provides:

(f) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to submissions made and issues raised after the date on which the Secretary first prescribes a list under section 6702(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by subsection (a).

That means that the $5,000 penalty probably applies to frivolous returns (returns raising frivolous issues) filed after March 15, 2007, the date of the aforementioned IRS notice.

[Joey Smith]

I wonder what the total amount of fines, sanctions and interests is against the CtCers? That would be interesting, especially since CtC is still batting a perfect .000 including Pete himself who went down the flusher on his own case and is about to do so on his appeal as well.

Whatever happened to John Bulten? Has he gone off to blindly follow another guru already?

[Famspear]

Joey Smith wrote:

Whatever happened to John Bulten? Has he gone off to blindly follow another guru already?

Based on what I've seen on the internet, Bulten seem to have occupied some of his time with the Ron Paul presidential candidacy.