IRS Zoom

[Imalawman]

Anyone remember who runs this site? http://www.irszoom.com/index.htm I think we've discussed before, but I can't find it.

[The Observer]

This one pretty much typifies the con-artist aspect of this site:

CUSTOMER TESTIMONIALS

“I have to admit when I purchased the Petition to Quash IRS 3rd party summons and 3rd party information letter I was a bit skeptical.

I'm please to announce that the very next day after receiving the Petition and info letter, the bank responded with an overnight letter to the Revenue Officer telling him that they will not release any information until the court has ruled!

Just thought you might like to know....Thank you"

"Your Petition to Quash letter has worked wonders and stopped the IRS from collecting my bank records!"

This "customer" (unless this was a made-up quote -which is quite possible, given the nature of the site) obviously does not understand how the law works in this situation and thus thought it was a miracle cure. The bank is supposed to do exactly what they did in this case: not forward the information until the court has ruled on the validity of the summons. What this "customer" does not realize is that they didn't need to pay IRSZOOM any money at all to file the quash action and that their filing would have been treated by the court like all other quash actions. Finally, this testimonial does not address what will happen when the court invariably rules in favor of the IRS to receive the information.

In other words, all this site does at best - and I'm willing to believe there is worse things happening here, I just didn't take the time to explore more - is to sell delay tactics at a outrageous markup.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I believe it's the program marketed via an MLM-like network that has this great offer:

IN ORDER TO TERMINATE AMERICA’S FEARS OF THE I.R.S. FOREVER:

FOR A $1,000 DOLLAR FEE, ($100 per year thereafter) WE WILL PROVIDE A $48,000 PER YEAR ANNUITY ($4,000 / month) TO YOU (AND YOUR FAMILY) IF YOU ARE EVER CONVICTED AND INCARCERATED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR A WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE A FORM 1040 TAX RETURN that would have reported ONLY earnings derived from within the fifty states united, and where there were no earnings derived from any excise taxable activity. Also INCLUDES the UNLIMITED USE OF THE IRSzoom.com WEB SITE RESPONSE DOCUMENTS AND LEGAL BRIEFS AND MOTIONS POSTED AS PRODUCTS !

It's the Tom Scambos scam, author of The Simple Truth About Income Tax.

From the archives:

viewtopic.php?f=27&t=3995&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd

[fortinbras]

There's a mention of IRSzoom on another Quatloos thread:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5135

.... wherein it used the typical con-artist advice of "if you don't follow my vague instructions to the very letter, even if the situation is inappropriate, I can bail out of helping you."

Does anyone know of any court case involving IRSzoom???

[tonyallen007]

What does this mean? Someone was showing this to me.

Title 31 U.S. Code § 321. General authority of the Secretary

D (2)For purposes of the Federal income, estate, and gift taxes, property accepted under paragraph (1) shall be considered as a gift or bequest to or for the use of the United States.

Then of course this is part one

(1)The Secretary of the Treasury may accept, hold, administer, and use gifts and bequests of property, both real and personal, for the purpose of aiding or facilitating the work of the Department of the Treasury. Gifts and bequests of money and the proceeds from sales of other property received as gifts or bequests shall be deposited in the Treasury in a separate fund and shall be disbursed on order of the Secretary of the Treasury. Property accepted under this paragraph, and the proceeds thereof, shall be used as nearly as possible in accordance with the terms of the gift or bequest.

[Pottapaug1938]

What does this mean? Someone was showing this to me.

Title 31 U.S. Code § 321. General authority of the Secretary

D (2)For purposes of the Federal income, estate, and gift taxes, property accepted under paragraph (1) shall be considered as a gift or bequest to or for the use of the United States.

Then of course this is part one

(1)The Secretary of the Treasury may accept, hold, administer, and use gifts and bequests of property, both real and personal, for the purpose of aiding or facilitating the work of the Department of the Treasury. Gifts and bequests of money and the proceeds from sales of other property received as gifts or bequests shall be deposited in the Treasury in a separate fund and shall be disbursed on order of the Secretary of the Treasury. Property accepted under this paragraph, and the proceeds thereof, shall be used as nearly as possible in accordance with the terms of the gift or bequest.

What do YOU think it means; and why do you ask? People who come to Quatloos "just asking questions" always seem to have a hidden motive for "just asking".

I took the liberty of reading the entire text of 31 USC 321, which deals with the general authority of the Secretary of the Treasury; and it is clear, to me, that the section which you quote (out of order, and out of context) deals with gifts and bequests of property to the United States -- specifically, the Treasury Department.

Easy, when you know how to do research, isn't it?

[notorial dissent]

For a Federal Tax Reg, it is quite clear and concise and very plain English.

[jcolvin2]

For a Federal Tax Reg, it is quite clear and concise and very plain English.

Maybe people look for hidden meaning in the reg because the cannot believe that anyone might make a gift to the US Treasury. While not a frequent occurence, it does happen.

[Burnaby49]

The Canadian Income Tax Act has a similar provision called "Gifts to the Crown" and, while extremely infrequently used, it has happened. It applies to federal, provincial, and municipal gifts.

[Cpt Banjo]

The purpose of the statute was probably to clarify that transfers to the Treasury Department would be deductible for gift tax purposes under §2522(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code:

(a)Citizens or residents. In computing taxable gifts for the calendar year, there shall be allowed as a deduction in the case of a citizen or resident the amount of all gifts made during such year to or for the use of—

(1) the United States, any State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, for exclusively public purposes

In other words, it allows donors to specify what part of "the United States" the gift is to be used for. There are similar statutes dealing with gifts to the Naval Academy (10 USC 6973) and other agencies.

[noblepa]

For a Federal Tax Reg, it is quite clear and concise and very plain English.

Maybe people look for hidden meaning in the reg because the cannot believe that anyone might make a gift to the US Treasury. While not a frequent occurence, it does happen.

I remember reading somewhere that the US government receives several million dollars in gifts every year. Sometimes in bequests in people's wills, but, surprisingly, some comes from people deliberately and knowingly overpaying their income tax liability.

I'm not talking about taxpayers who are so afraid of an audit that they don't take all the deductions that they are legally entitled to. I'm talking about people who feel that they can contribute more to the public good.

Granted, in the grand scheme of the total tax annual revenue, this is a drop in the bucket, but, as has been said, it does happen.

[tonyallen007]

No agenda here just trying to make sense of it since this seems to be the site that debunks everything tax related..

Not sure how I could have quoted it out of context since that is directly from Cornell law university's website and I remember somewhere I read that a law is void if it is vague but that doesn't seem to be vague.. and the reason I put it in the order that I did is part 2 refers back to part one..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D (2)For purposes of the Federal income, estate, and gift taxes, property accepted under paragraph (1) shall be considered as a gift or bequest to or for the use of the United States. Not sure of this but is money or labor considered someone's property?

but anyways.... So what you're telling me is that people actually give property under Federal income, estate, and gift taxes as gifts?
I have to tell you I am extremely slow but why would Congress publish a statue to say that and better yet who in their right mind does that? Why would you have to gift it under Federal income, estate, and gift taxes? Why not just a donation?

Crazy as it seems to me it's says that Federal income, estate, and gift taxes are all gifts to the United States Government.. BUT heck i don't know just reading it out of the statue..

And even weirder than that why put something like that in 31 U.S. Code Title 31— MONEY AND FINANCE and not in Title 26?

Thanks for your input and feed back

best wishes

[notorial dissent]

What the law is saying is that a gift can come under the Federal Tax laws under certain circumstances. So, you've what never heard of giving a gift to the sovereign??? Awfully sheltered life then. People do it all the time, a little thing called being civic minded.

Crazy as it seems to me it's says that Federal income, estate, and gift taxes are all gifts to the United States Government.. BUT heck i don't know just reading it out of the statue..

NO, that is not even close to what it is saying. It is in Title 31 because it has to do with how money is handled by the gov't. Title 26 has to do with taxes. Gifts are not taxes but can be subject to tax either by the person receiving it or by the person giving it.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

No agenda here just trying to make sense of it since this seems to be the site that debunks everything tax related..

You'll have to forgive as there has been a rash of, how shall I put it, extremely obtuse questions which, whilst accidental on your behalf, are similarly constructed. They usually end up in the Word Salad Bar section, if you'd like a look.

I assume it's similar in the US, but in the UK gifting to the state is not uncommon with respect to families with large inherited assets (country houses, manors etc) but very little liquid cash and is often done to avoid passing on huge inheritance tax burdens to descendants which in the UK has to be paid within 6 months of the person dying with real money. It makes sense to have laws covering it.

[Famspear]

Not sure how I could have quoted it out of context since that is directly from Cornell law university's website and I remember somewhere I read that a law is void if it is vague but that doesn't seem to be vague.. and the reason I put it in the order that I did is part 2 refers back to part one..

You didn't quote it out of context. The mistake you made was that you read one thing and then you thought something else.

In effect, you read the statute in your mind to be "Federal income, estate, and gift taxes are all gifts to the United States Government".

That's not what the statute says.

Your mistake reminds me of the mistake made by tax protesters who read the phrase "non-positive law" and incorrectly assume that it means "not the law."

[Famspear]

Here's what you said:

"Crazy as it seems to me it's says that Federal income, estate, and gift taxes are all gifts to the United States Government.. BUT heck i don't know just reading it out of the statue.. [sic]"

But, that's not what the statute says. Here's what the statute actually says:

For purposes of the Federal income, estate, and gift taxes, property accepted under paragraph (1) shall be considered as a gift or bequest to or for the use of the United States.

[Pottapaug1938]

Your problem, Tony, is that you read excerpts from the law, and treated them as stand-alone pronouncements. It would have gone much more easily for you had you read the entire section, which would have helped you to find the proper context for the cited provisions.

The law is not vague, in the least.

[noblepa]

I don't think that Tony was saying that the statute he quoted said that all taxes paid are gifts to the Federal government. I think he was merely making an observation and stating his opinion that this was the case. Unfortunately, that drifts dangerously close to typical tax denier rhetoric, that taxes are voluntary or not required.

Tony, the difference between taxes and gifts to the government is that you are legally OBLIGATED to pay tax, according to the formula set forth in Title 26, the income tax code. A gift is a donation, made VOLUNTARILY, with no obligation. If I fail to pay the tax I owe, there can be serious repercussions, even jail time. If I decline to make a gift to the government, nothing happens.

IANAL or a tax expert, but I suspect that the reason such gifts are specifically called out in the law, is that it is defining them as gifts in order to define how they are accounted for when paying taxes.

Not all donations are handled the same way under the tax code. If I make a donation to a 501c(3) organization, such as a church or school, that donation is deductible from my gross income, which is used to calculate my tax liability. If I make a donation to a political party or to a candidate's campaign fund, that gift is not deductible. So, it is important that the law defines the nature of certain transactions.

[noblepa]

I just remembered one case in which taxes can sort of be considered a gift.

I remember reading that, in response to Trump's tax bill of 2017, which eliminated the deductibility of state taxes, California passed (or was considering) a bill that would allow a 100 percent tax credit against state taxes for gifts made to the State of California.

In other words, if I made a gift to the state that exactly equaled what my tax liability would have been, then my state tax liability is reduced to zero.

The difference is that, while state income taxes are no longer deductible, gifts to the state ARE deductible.

The state gets the same amount of money. The taxpayer pays the same amount of money, but, under this law, he can deduct the tax/gift paid to the state on his/her federal income tax.

At the time, there was some question as to whether California would get away with this. Some argued that it was unconstitutional, but I don't know the grounds.

Does anyone else remember this? Did it ever pass into law? Has a court addressed the legality?

[Famspear]

I just remembered one case in which taxes can sort of be considered a gift.

I remember reading that, in response to Trump's tax bill of 2017, which eliminated the deductibility of state taxes, California passed (or was considering) a bill that would allow a 100 percent tax credit against state taxes for gifts made to the State of California.

In other words, if I made a gift to the state that exactly equaled what my tax liability would have been, then my state tax liability is reduced to zero.

The difference is that, while state income taxes are no longer deductible, gifts to the state ARE deductible.

The state gets the same amount of money. The taxpayer pays the same amount of money, but, under this law, he can deduct the tax/gift paid to the state on his/her federal income tax.

At the time, there was some question as to whether California would get away with this. Some argued that it was unconstitutional, but I don't know the grounds.

Does anyone else remember this? Did it ever pass into law? Has a court addressed the legality?

I remember the talk about that, and I don't recall seeing a report that such a proposal was ever enacted.

The problem is that if the proposal had been enacted as law in California, it would not necessarily have made the supposed "gifts" be deductible (e.g., as "charitable contributions" or whatever) for Federal income tax purposes -- and that was the whole purpose of the proposal (I think). Such a scheme would be like having the California legislature enact a statute that declares all personal, living and family expenses to be "business expenses" -- for the purpose of somehow making the payments of such expenses by California residents be deductible as "business expenses" for Federal income tax purposes.

A state can do what it wants with respect to deductions under state law. I doubt that a state legislature can circumvent Federal tax law using such a scheme.