Peymon Mottahedeh and Freedom Law School on Youtube

[Cspeter8]

"Lifetime Guarantee
‍When you lawfully and correctly stop filing 1040 Income Tax "confession" forms as directed by FLS ...

And I understand this sentence is likely anathema to others reading on this forum, due to the claim that not filing 1040 is "lawful".

There really is a radically different understanding of what is lawful to the average quatloos BB member (consistent with taxcourt or other case law rulings), and what is lawful to Peymon. Tax protestors may be following a law that flows from their own conscience. Take Irwin Schiff, for example. He was so stubborn, he died on a prison gurney rather than compromise his own understanding of what he held to be truely lawful to him.

May I ask you to maybe consider not being so quick to judge and condemn Peymon to be a scammer who intentionally deceives to make a quick buck, unless you see yourself as God-like, able to see into a man's heart and judge inner motives.

[Pottapaug1938]

"Lifetime Guarantee
‍When you lawfully and correctly stop filing 1040 Income Tax "confession" forms as directed by FLS ...

And I understand this sentence is likely anathema to others reading on this forum, due to the claim that not filing 1040 is "lawful".

There really is a radically different understanding of what is lawful to the average quatloos BB member (consistent with taxcourt or other case law rulings), and what is lawful to Peymon. Tax protestors may be following a law that flows from their own conscience. Take Irwin Schiff, for example. He was so stubborn, he died on a prison gurney rather than compromise his own understanding of what he held to be truely lawful to him.

May I ask you to maybe consider not being so quick to judge and condemn Peymon to be a scammer who intentionally deceives to make a quick buck, unless you see yourself as God-like, able to see into a man's heart and judge inner motives.

The law does not care whether tax protestors are following a law "that flows from their own consciences," or that Peymon sees the law as something other than what it is. The law is the law, whether you accept it as true or not. We don't get to pick and choose what the law is as regards our own actions. As for Peymon being "a scammer who intentionally deceives to make a quick buck," or being hasty in judging Peymon, we need only look at the fact that he has never been successful in getting his legal fantasies accepted by any of our courts, and at the fact that he has been on the Quatloosian radar screen for over 20 years.

[wserra]

May I ask you to maybe consider not being so quick to judge and condemn Peymon to be a scammer who intentionally deceives to make a quick buck, unless you see yourself as God-like, able to see into a man's heart and judge inner motives.

In point of fact, in a single sentence you've just written off 99% of every legal action, civil and criminal, that attempts to hold someone accountable for what s/he intentionally does. It's pretty rare for someone to say, "I intended to blow that guy's head off while not acting in self-defense" or "I intended to rob that bank of money I knew wasn't mine" or "I intended to lock that guy up without probable cause so that he would spend a few years in jail for something he didn't do". The law doesn't require that, since it allows the common-sense inference that people intend the natural consequences of what they do. Actually, there is a rare, limited exception to that principle in certain criminal tax statutes, due to the requirement that someone act "knowingly" and the Supreme Court's interpretation of that word in a case called Cheek, but Cheek isn't relevant unless and until someone is charged with a tax crime (and then rarely works). Under all other circumstances, taking money for something you know to be useless pretty much fits most people's definition of a con.

As for Mottahedeh, his motives are no more in question to the rational viewer than are those of the person who smashes someone's head with a hammer and buries the body in his backyard. That person can always say, "But I thought he was a vampire come to turn my family". However, absent a history of significant mental illness, no one will believe that, and the law surely does not require anyone to do so. The fact that Mottahedeh is wrong about the law is simply not rationally disputable, and neither you nor he (as I'm sure you've noticed, he has posted to this board on several occasions, including in this thread) has even tried to dispute it. So now's your chance. He's had his.

There's even a better way to show what Mottahedeh thinks of his own bullshit: when his own ass is on the line, he doesn't use it. This thread contains links to the actual briefs Mottahedeh and his wife filed when their own tax liability was at stake. Nothing at all about how no law requires someone with "private earnings" (whatever that is) to pay income tax, or how requiring the filing of a tax return violates the Fifth Amendment, or how the Sixteenth Amendment was not "lawfully added" to the Constitution (he apparently is unfamiliar with the word "ratified"). Why is that? He can't even blame some lawyer for the filings, because he and his wife were pro se. So why is that stuff good enough that he can charge someone else $22K for it, but not use it himself?

Because he knows that it's oil of snake.

[NYGman]

"Lifetime Guarantee
‍When you lawfully and correctly stop filing 1040 Income Tax "confession" forms as directed by FLS ...

And I understand this sentence is likely anathema to others reading on this forum, due to the claim that not filing 1040 is "lawful".

That is the crux of the problem, there is no Lawful way to stop filing 1040's unless your income is below a threshold or in some circumstances where you are over a certain age. However as a rule, if your tax liability exceeds the tax withheld, you must file, and pay the tax. Go right ahead and skip filing if your withholding exceeds your liability.

Take a look at The 2022 1040EZ Instructions Page 9.

So based on his statement, he likely will never have to pay out on this guarantee as the Lawful aspect can never be met by anyone making above the stated thresholds provided in the instructions. Amounts will be updated for 23.

[The Observer]

His current plan appears to list specific situations under which he cannot guarantee anything, which seems to be a good starting point for better informed conversations.

Don't you think, in the interest of honesty, he would also provide an explanation of why he didn't use his theories for his own tax case? That would give all potential clients a better picture of what they are facing. Or do you not see his hypocrisy?

The mere fact that he had to change the Freedom Law School plan/guarantees indicates that there was a serious problem and disconnect between what he was promising and what he was actually delivering. And by recommending his clients to stop filing tax returns he has come up with worst strategy possible since that is the easiest way for the government to prove willful tax evasion.

curious; where is this Tax Scam Promoter's list?

If this is a serious request, then apparently you don't recognize sarcasm. And if you do recognize sarcasm, then you already know the answer to your own question.

[wserra]

If this is a serious request, then apparently you don't recognize sarcasm.

Not to mention dramatic irony, metaphor, pathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire.

[Cspeter8]

His current plan appears to list specific situations under which he cannot guarantee anything, which seems to be a good starting point for better informed conversations.

Don't you think, in the interest of honesty, he would also provide an explanation of why he didn't use his theories for his own tax case? That would give all potential clients a better picture of what they are facing. Or do you not see his hypocrisy?

By "his own theories" that he does not use in his own tax case, do you mean the reasoning about there being no law requiring people to file or pay income tax? If so, then I don't think this is about honesty, it is clear to everyone that examines peymon's teachings that it is about pragmatism. No, he advises people, I believe in being pragmatic: not to use logic about why the income tax has to be voluntary, but to recognize that from peymon's view, the judges in the court system have extreme cognitive dissonance that prevents them from taking an unbiased look at the tax protestor's argument. I suppose are required to be, to avoid the indignity of having their decision overturned by a higher court. Theoretically some day a supreme court majority might reverse the massive case law upholding the validity of the income tax. But I understand that suggesting this may some day happen does not add to the legality of any such theory at present in your mind.

The mere fact that he had to change the Freedom Law School plan/guarantees indicates that there was a serious problem and disconnect between what he was promising and what he was actually delivering.

I may be mistaken, I was informed today that this exception about interst/dividend collection that can bypass usual due process has been in place for some time.

And by recommending his clients to stop filing tax returns he has come up with worst strategy possible since that is the easiest way for the government to prove willful tax evasion.

My response to you might totally flip you out; I find it, and other substantiating evidence also found at this step-2 link, convincing. I would value your review of the accuracy of these factual statements that Peymon makes, quoted from https://www.freedomlawschool.org/step-2

When you file a 1040 income tax form or any federal tax form, you give up the rights to your most private and sensitive financial information to the IRS. The IRS can then use these documents as evidence against you in a court of law, which can then force you to prove all expenses, deductions and credits that you claimed on your tax form. If you cannot prove such expenses, deductions and credits, you will end up paying a lot more money to the IRS, or even be sentenced to lengthy prison terms.

You open yourself up to three separate tax crime charges for each IRS 1040 form or other document that you file with the IRS:

Attempting to evade or defeat tax (tax evasion), sending you to prison for up to 5 years for each 1040 form or other document, per Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 7201.
Various forms of "fraud and false statements", sending you to prison for up to 3 years for each 1040 form or other document, per IRC § 7206.
Filing fraudulent returns, statements, or other documents, sending you to prison for up to 1 year for each 1040 form or other document, per IRC § 7207.
This can add up to 9 years for each IRS 1040 income tax form or other tax document. Since the IRS usually waits until a taxpayer has filed several years of income tax forms before charging them, this can easily add up to more years in prison than the maximum sentence of many violent crime laws.

You also give up your Fifth Amendment constitutional right to be silent and not give any information to the government that they could use to put you in prison.

By contrast, if you do not file a 1040 income tax "confession trap" form, there is a much less chance (which you'll see in Step 3) that the IRS may charge you with "willful failure to file a tax return" under IRC § 7203, which carries a potential one-year prison term.

Despite this threat, you cannot be convicted of "willful failure to file" charges when:

you can show that you have relied on the official legal websites of the US government to conclude that you are not required to file and pay federal income, self-employment, or payroll taxes,
you wrote to your federal lawmakers asking whether they can show you that you are in error and show you the law that requires you to file and pay federal income taxes, and
your federal lawmakers were unable to show you that you are in error.
Freedom Law School makes this protection available for you to do on your own, or we will do it for you as a Restore Freedom Plan member. You will read more about this in Step 5.

You unwittingly increase your chances of going to prison for taxes when you sign under penalties of perjury that your 1040 form is "true, correct, and complete".

[Cspeter8]

taking money for something you know to be useless pretty much fits most people's definition of a con.

If you look at https://www.freedomlawschool.org/step-4#Student-VC
you will find a couple of dozen victory stories FLS has had in helping their students successfully avoid the IRS taking away their property. I have read every one of these. I admit there is some duplication and the organization and web presentation could be improved, but I believe these victories prove that value is being provided by Peymon.
Peymon never argues that the underlying law is invalid, because the courts as they are will never openly consider arguments that the income tax is fundamentally dishonest from a legal basis. Instead he has prevailed multiple times by availing himself of the due process provisions in the IRC, and also not having to overcome the self-incrimination that exists when a 1040 form is filed. Another way Peymon provides value is by exposing the actual track record of the IRS in prosecuting non-tax filers in the last 10 years. You should take a look at each bullet item in step 3, and take special notice of step 6 from this link: https://www.freedomlawschool.org/step-3
This information does not appear useless at all in my view. Moreover, this information is freely available whether someone joins FLS or not. People are being motivated to join Peymon to voluntarily fund a war chest to fight for our freedom from an ill-conceived graduated income tax that is a core tenant of the communist manifesto.

There's even a better way to show what Mottahedeh thinks of his own bullshit: when his own ass is on the line, he doesn't use it. This thread contains links to the actual briefs Mottahedeh and his wife filed when their own tax liability was at stake. Nothing at all about how no law requires someone with "private earnings" (whatever that is) to pay income tax, or how requiring the filing of a tax return violates the Fifth Amendment, or how the Sixteenth Amendment was not "lawfully added" to the Constitution (he apparently is unfamiliar with the word "ratified"). Why is that? He can't even blame some lawyer for the filings, because he and his wife were pro se. So why is that stuff good enough that he can charge someone else $22K for it, but not use it himself?

Because he knows that it's oil of snake.

I have read through this entire thread, and understand there was a recent (in last month or two?) appeals court ruling on one or more liens against peymon that he has lost. But I am having trouble finding the exact amount of money at stake, and I have been unable to obtain the links to the court decisions that give a clear summary of the story from start to finish. I would like to follow up with Peymon regarding this recent appeals court loss (and post here his viewpoint on it), but feel unable to collect all the pertinant details to effectively question Peymon. I would welcome anyone willing to help assemble official links to pertinant details concerning any liens relating to the recent adverse appeals court verdict.

[Pottapaug1938]

Cspeter8 -- you overlook the fact that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is not up to us to prove you wrong; it is up to you to prove Peymon right. Also, you say that "... to recognize that from peymon's view, the judges in the court system have extreme cognitive dissonance that prevents them from taking an unbiased look at the tax protestor's argument;" but you again overlook the fact that the law does not care what you think about the law, except perhaps in mitigation of punishment, and the fact that judges do not have "extreme cognitive dissonance" in their decisions. They must follow the law as it is, not as anyone might wish it to be. Judges HATE to have their decisions reversed on appeal; so they do their best to get things right the first time.

[The Observer]

No, he advises people, I believe in being pragmatic: not to use logic about why the income tax has to be voluntary, but to recognize that from peymon's view, the judges in the court system have extreme cognitive dissonance that prevents them from taking an unbiased look at the tax protestor's argument.

No, that is not what he advises. If it were, then he wouldn't have gone to court himself in the first place. He would have recognized it as complete futility. So, by your reasoning, he should have followed the same strategy that he sells to his followers.

Theoretically some day a supreme court majority might reverse the massive case law upholding the validity of the income tax.

Theoretically? Or just a possibility? Either way, it won't happen just because somehow the Court suddenly recognizes Peymon's arguments and interpretation of the tax laws as the truth.

I may be mistaken, I was informed today that this exception about interst/dividend collection that can bypass usual due process has been in place for some time.

I have no idea of what you are referring to in regards to the collection due process. Perhaps you can provide more info and detail.

When you file a 1040 income tax form or any federal tax form, you give up the rights to your most private and sensitive financial information to the IRS. The IRS can then use these documents as evidence against you in a court of law, which can then force you to prove all expenses, deductions and credits that you claimed on your tax form. If you cannot prove such expenses, deductions and credits, you will end up paying a lot more money to the IRS, or even be sentenced to lengthy prison terms.

Most of the above is twisted or misinterpreted. If the IRS requests proof of the claims you made on your 1040 as part of an audit process, you don't have to provide it. The IRS then can summons you for the documents, but even then you don't have to surrender it. The IRS will have to go into US district court to enforce the summons and show the judge the reasons why they need those documents to complete the audit as well as show that they cannot get the information from other sources. And you have the right to go to court to quash the summons, showing the judge that the IRS request was unreasonable. All of those steps are available to every taxpayer who wishes to contest providing information to the IRS. What also is not mentioned is the numerous sources that is provided to the IRS by third parties who also have your private and sensitive financial information - sources that the IRS can use to reconstruct a taxpayer's probable income. Peymon's screed does not refer to any of this at all, which is dishonest because it leads the reader to believe that the only way they can evade taxes is to not file the return. And that is incorrect, because as we have seen in Peymon's case, refusing to file his returns did not help and he now has an assessed tax liability.

And the other twisted issue is claiming that the IRS can force you to prove expenses and credits. Why would anyone not wish to prove those facts in order to lower the IRS proposed tax liability? Only because they made false claims about those expenses. Otherwise, any taxpayer does not have to claim such credits on their return and the IRS will certainly not come asking for your expenses. The only thing typically required is that the taxpayer provide their income received for the tax year. And refusing to file the return is not going to stop the IRS from filing a return for you - just as they did in Peymon's situation and without any credits/expenses given to him.

You also give up your Fifth Amendment constitutional right to be silent and not give any information to the government that they could use to put you in prison.

And that is also twisted. The Supreme Court ruled in US v. Sullivan (1927) that there is no constitutional right to refuse filing a return or provide financial information on the basis that it violates the 5th Amendment. So you can't give up a right that you did not have in the first place - nor can you exercise a right that you never had. And this basic position has been supported in subsequent appeal cases such as US v. Brown (10th Cir, 1979), US v. Neff (9th Cir, 1980), and US v. Daly (8th Cir 1973).

you can show that you have relied on the official legal websites of the US government to conclude that you are not required to file and pay federal income, self-employment, or payroll taxes,
you wrote to your federal lawmakers asking whether they can show you that you are in error and show you the law that requires you to file and pay federal income taxes, and
your federal lawmakers were unable to show you that you are in error.

All of this is completely wrong for a number of reasons and will not suffice as a defense against tax evasion charges. There is no requirement that lawmakers have to prove to you that the law is correct and accurate nor show you how you are wrong. That is a job for the courts and the government prosecutors when you are facing trial. What Peymon is trying to fool his clients into believing that they can create a Cheek defense by sending out the typical gibberish that he and other promoters sell them. This gibberish is typically a list of irrelevant, meaningless and pseudolegal questions that no lawmaker or other government prosecutor is going to waste time responding to. And then Peymon will tell his marks that because no one spent hours responding to this crap, it means this is a tacit admission that there is no law requiring you to file returns and pay taxes. So Peymon will say that you can argue in court that you can't be convicted because no one explained the law to you and showed it was correct.

The problem with all of that is that it is not true. Courts ignore that as a defense and will not accept it as a Cheek defense against willfulness. And again, Peymon did not argue this issue in his own suit. Instead he just claimed that the IRS couldn't get the proposed liability amount correct. If Peymon knows the correct and proper way to argue a non-filing case, then why did he not show the court that lawmakers failed to answer his questions about the tax law and prove to him that they are correct and legal?

If you look at https://www.freedomlawschool.org/step-4#Student-VC
you will find a couple of dozen victory stories FLS has had in helping their students successfully avoid the IRS taking away their property.

Ok, let's do that:

Case #1 - Taxpayer had a proposed liability by the IRS that they contested in a due process hearing and then went to Tax Court, which IRS stipulated with the defendant to abate the liability due to the IRS failing to send the notice of deficiency to the last known address of the taxpayer. That is a critical fault of a mandatory requirement for the audit process. And the IRS recognizes it which is why they abated the liability. But it has nothing to do with the nonsense that Peymon argues. Any tax lawyer would have recognized the issue and raised it during the due process hearing. Why Peymon and FLS did not do so until it got to Tax Court indicates that he overlooked it (showing his ignorance of tax procedure) or just wanted to get the case into court at the taxpayer's expense so he could pretend that he had an amazing victory. The problem here are the magic words "without prejudice" in the stipulation. That simply means that the IRS can proceed again with the assessment (provided that they follow procedures correctly). Since I am not seeing FLS claiming any other victories for this case, I am guessing that the taxpayer got assessed again. Some victory.

Case #2 - Taxpayer was denied a Collection Due Process hearing. Peymon gets them into Tax Court and IRS Counsel moves to remand the case back to Appeals so that the taxpayer can have a face-to-face hearing that they requested. Again, this is a procedural issue and Peymon didn't use any of his stupid arguments to get the taxpayer out of their liability. I note that the IRS motion mentions that the taxpayer had at one point been arguing frivolous positions. No mention of what happened to this taxpayer after they got their face-to-face meeting.

I went through the rest of the so-called "victories" and they were basically for the same issue - IRS not following established guidelines for providing proper notice for deficiency assessments or collection activity. Only one case appears to have actually gone to trial (see below), all the rest were settled or resolved prior to trial. None of the cases featured any relation between their results and Peymon's theories on the income tax being illegal.

The one case that went to trial resulted in a win for the taxpayer because the IRS was unable to verify the reported income (due to the agent not keeping accurate records of the audit, having faulty memory and no third-party records due to the employer being out of business). Again, this result had nothing to do with Peymon arguing his nonsense in open court and the court ruling in favor of his "client" due to Peymon's so-called brilliance.

In summary, all Peymon is doing is capitalizing on IRS unforced errors that should have never been made in the first place and for which no court is going to stand. That is the law and which is why the IRS immediately resolved most of these cases before they ever had to go to trial. But none of these prove that Peymon is correct about his frivolous positions. While I can agree that he did a service to these people in getting the IRS to adhere to its procedures, the sad thing is that he misleading people by implying his stupid anti-tax arguments are correct. If anything, these examples show that the courts and the IRS do ultimately follow the law and are not just rubber-stamping decisions.

I would like to follow up with Peymon regarding this recent appeals court loss (and post here his viewpoint on it), but feel unable to collect all the pertinant details to effectively question Peymon.

The link to the court case is in the promoter thread about Mottahedeh, I am not going to bother to link it for you, since it will be a waste of my time. And I can save you some time by guessing what Peymon will say. He will claim that the court and the IRS are corrupt and/or unable to interpret the law correctly. They didn't listen to him, they violated procedures and his rights. I doubt that he will say he made any mistakes in his case. And he will tell you a bunch of lies to make it seem that he is correct.

And then you will believe him.

[wserra]

If you look at [snip link to Mottahedeh's scam site] you will find a couple of dozen victory stories FLS has had in helping their students successfully avoid the IRS taking away their property.

"Stories" is actually a good description. In addition to what Obs quite correctly noted, all identifying information is redacted. That means you have to take Payme's word for it, since they're not verifiable.

That's the opposite of the way law really works. In reality, one of the main reasons the legal citation system exists is so that you don't have to take anyone's word for it. You can verify it for yourself. Therefore, when I wrote that Mottahedeh had not only lost yet again, but had failed to use his own slam-bang stuff for which he charges people who don't know better $22K, I didn't post some document filled with black marks. Instead, I posted the exact words of the Ninth Circuit. Want to check from a source that doesn't require a PACER/Lexis/Westlaw subscription? No problem.

There is, of course, another excellent reason not to take Mottahedeh's word for what happened to a case, or even if such a case exists - he lies. There are plenty of examples of this, but one happened right here in real time. Mottahedeh indignantly denied that he had tax liens. I knew better, looked them up, and posted them. Not surprisingly, Mottahedeh has not posted here since. By the way, those liens are still up. As with many db sites, you can't link to the results of a specific search, but you can link to the search page. Enter Mottahedeh's name, select Region/All, and you'll see that he has current IRS liens recorded in three FL counties.

Do you get the idea of "verification" now?

the courts as they are will never openly consider arguments that the income tax is fundamentally dishonest from a legal basis.

That's gibberish. "Fundamentally dishonest" is your opinion, not a legal concept such as "unconstitutional" or "overbroad". Why should courts consider your opinion?

Moreover, this information is freely available whether someone joins FLS or not.

It isn't, of course. What part of "verification" is so difficult for you?

People are being motivated to join Peymon to voluntarily fund a war chest to fight for our freedom from an ill-conceived graduated income tax that is a core tenant of the communist manifesto.

The communist manifesto is a landlord? Who knew?

[Cspeter8]

People are being motivated to join Peymon to voluntarily fund a war chest to fight for our freedom from an ill-conceived graduated income tax that is a core tenant of the communist manifesto.

The communist manifesto is a landlord? Who knew?

excuse my error: I intended the word tenet

[Pottapaug1938]

Cspeter 8 said "[t]heoretically some day a supreme court majority might reverse the massive case law upholding the validity of the income tax."

RIGHT. And "theoretically" some day a supreme court majority might invalidate the law of gravity, order that the Earth rotate in the other direction so that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, order that the Atlantic Ocean be drained to provide more cropland, and so on....

Cspeter8 needs to learn the difference between "theoretically" and "hypothetically."

[wserra]

Cspeter8 needs to learn the difference between "theoretically" and "hypothetically."

Sorry, Pottapaug, I disagree. Cspeter8 needs to learn the difference between "theoretically" and "when pigs fly".

[The Observer]

Cspeter8 needs to learn the difference between "theoretically" and "when pigs fly".

Or he needs to learn the difference between "theoretically" and "when Hell freezes over."

Or my favorite: he needs to learn the difference between "theoretically" and "when Wes becomes a NBA power forward."

[JamesVincent]

you will find a couple of dozen victory stories FLS has had in helping their students successfully avoid the IRS taking away their property.

I have never had my property seized by the IRS without FLS help. Never had to pay someone to tell me how to not have it taken away either. You'll also notice that I linked an official IRS release of one of Payme's "students" going to jail earlier. He didn't have his property seized either, he just went to jail. Seeing the common thread here? It's very easy to not have your property taken. But, in the sake of clarity and since I refuse to drive traffic to a scammers site, why don't you link the official case cite for any of the "dozens" of wins and prove, once and for all, that it was Payme's advice that helped. I mean there's multiple dozen of them, right? You should be able to come up with more than a few then.

[The Observer]

...[A]nd prove, once and for all, that it was Payme's advice that helped.

The term "advice" has to be defined at least in terms of what advice Peymon provided. In the interest of honesty, if the cases cited on the FLS site are being accurately reported, then I would have to say that it appeared that Peymon did help these people overcome IRS errors by advising that a due process claim should be made by the taxpayer.

But the important thing to note here is that first, none of the cases show that these people made stupid claims that they were not liable for tax because of the 5th Amendment violations, that no federal official ever proved that it was legal to assess and collect tax, and any other frivolous positions that Peymon has preached. Even if they had, the taxpayers only won because of IRS procedural errors that any court would have tossed out if it made it that far to court - of which only one did and it got remanded back from court to be corrected by the IRS. There is not one case listed on the "victory" page where the IRS or courts admitted that Peymon's pseuodlegal gibberish was correct or relevant to the case issues at hand.

Secondly, these FLS clients didn't really need to pay Peymon for his "royal" gibberish, they could have successfully represented themselves at the due process meeting free of charge. Or they could have gotten representation from any qualified enrolled agent, attorney or CPA for far less than Peymon charges if they lacked the expertise, knowledge and/or confidence to go to the meeting. They could have contacted the Taxpayer Advocates office as a way to get assistance with understanding the issues of the case; if the TAO had seen some of the issues in these cases, they probably would have reached out to the employee or manager in an effort to dial back the process and get the matter resolved earlier.

This is equivalent to Peymon standing on the shoulder of a giant and claiming he is tall.

The ironic thing is if Peymon had pursued a legal path in securing enrolled agent status, he could have made a comfortable and licit income in representing taxpayers on these due process issues.

[wserra]

One other point, Obs: as we acknowledged when he was still gracing us with his presence, Mottahedeh did succeed in having certain assessments against him voided on due process grounds - only to have the IRS re-assess them and re-file NFTLs. For all we know, similar things happened to the people whom you discuss, namely strictly temporary victories. We knew who Mottahedeh was, and so could follow up. Since Mottahedeh redacted what are, after all, public records, we don't know who they are, and so do not know the bottom line. Can't imagine that's what he wanted.

[The Observer]

For all we know, similar things happened to the people whom you discuss, namely strictly temporary victories.

Yes, I had pointed that as an example in "victory #1" above with the case being dismissed without prejudice. Since all of the other cases were only resolved over IRS procedural errors, there was nothing preventing the IRS from going back and getting the assessment, lien, levy or whatev right the next time. Bottom line, tax is still owed and the IRS is going to move ahead.

[Cspeter8]

I may be mistaken, I was informed today that this exception about interst/dividend collection that can bypass usual due process has been in place for some time.

I have no idea of what you are referring to in regards to the collection due process. Perhaps you can provide more info and detail.

My memory was inaccurate. He lists 3 scenarios he cannot help with directly: (1) IRS’s backup withholding “C” program (2) Jeopardy assessments under IRC Section 6861, which are extremely rare (3) IRS “lock-in” letters, which the IRS occasionally and arbitrarily sends employers, telling the employer to withhold the maximum amount from your pay. He suggests the solution to item 3 is to work in one's own business. Source: https://www.freedomlawschool.org/restor ... -agreement. BTW, does this board prefer not to see any links to Peymon's website? If not then I won't include them, although it would seem to make it harder for a reader to follow our discussions.

When you file a 1040 income tax form or any federal tax form, you give up the rights to your most private and sensitive financial information to the IRS. The IRS can then use these documents as evidence against you in a court of law, which can then force you to prove all expenses, deductions and credits that you claimed on your tax form. If you cannot prove such expenses, deductions and credits, you will end up paying a lot more money to the IRS, or even be sentenced to lengthy prison terms.

Most of the above is twisted or misinterpreted. If the IRS requests proof of the claims you made on your 1040 as part of an audit process, you don't have to provide it. The IRS then can summons you for the documents, but even then you don't have to surrender it. The IRS will have to go into US district court to enforce the summons and show the judge the reasons why they need those documents to complete the audit as well as show that they cannot get the information from other sources. And you have the right to go to court to quash the summons, showing the judge that the IRS request was unreasonable. All of those steps are available to every taxpayer who wishes to contest providing information to the IRS.

How does that work out for people who would appeal to a tax court judge for the right to withhold private information that the IRS requests? It seems to me that signing a 1040 form puts a defendant in an indefensible position before any tax court. Just my opinion.

What also is not mentioned is the numerous sources that is provided to the IRS by third parties who also have your private and sensitive financial information - sources that the IRS can use to reconstruct a taxpayer's probable income. Peymon's screed does not refer to any of this at all, which is dishonest because it leads the reader to believe that the only way they can evade taxes is to not file the return. And that is incorrect, because as we have seen in Peymon's case, refusing to file his returns did not help and he now has an assessed tax liability.

Actually Peymon does address this. The "Automated Substitute for Return" ASFR program is now suspended, see recomendation #1 in https://www.tigta.gov/sites/default/fil ... 0078fr.pdf

And the other twisted issue is claiming that the IRS can force you to prove expenses and credits. Why would anyone not wish to prove those facts in order to lower the IRS proposed tax liability? Only because they made false claims about those expenses. Otherwise, any taxpayer does not have to claim such credits on their return and the IRS will certainly not come asking for your expenses. The only thing typically required is that the taxpayer provide their income received for the tax year. And refusing to file the return is not going to stop the IRS from filing a return for you - just as they did in Peymon's situation and without any credits/expenses given to him.

I agree, it is dishonest to file a 1040 return which contains false claims. However, with the income tax record keeping burden and filing burden so massive, and with the foundation of legitimacy of the entire income tax so shaky that no federal lawmaker has ever shown us the law that requires us to file and pay federal income taxes, a very large number of taxpayers are deciding they are done with filing 1040 tax returns.

You also give up your Fifth Amendment constitutional right to be silent and not give any information to the government that they could use to put you in prison.

And that is also twisted. The Supreme Court ruled in US v. Sullivan (1927) that there is no constitutional right to refuse filing a return or provide financial information on the basis that it violates the 5th Amendment. So you can't give up a right that you did not have in the first place - nor can you exercise a right that you never had. And this basic position has been supported in subsequent appeal cases such as US v. Brown (10th Cir, 1979), US v. Neff (9th Cir, 1980), and US v. Daly (8th Cir 1973).

Impressive court citations. I'll pass this along to Peymon. I think Peymon's point is, however, that a randomly selected jury of citizens might very well decide that all of these judicial decisions are wrong. They seemed to think Joe Bannister deserved an aquittal.

Law-school educated attorneys believe that the constitution is interpreted solely by the courts. However freedom activists believe the constitution is written in plain language to be read and understood and interpreted by every citizen, so that citizenry can use it to limit the power of overreaching government, including courts.

you can show that you have relied on the official legal websites of the US government to conclude that you are not required to file and pay federal income, self-employment, or payroll taxes,
you wrote to your federal lawmakers asking whether they can show you that you are in error and show you the law that requires you to file and pay federal income taxes, and
your federal lawmakers were unable to show you that you are in error.

All of this is completely wrong for a number of reasons and will not suffice as a defense against tax evasion charges. There is no requirement that lawmakers have to prove to you that the law is correct and accurate nor show you how you are wrong. That is a job for the courts and the government prosecutors when you are facing trial. What Peymon is trying to fool his clients into believing that they can create a Cheek defense by sending out the typical gibberish that he and other promoters sell them. This gibberish is typically a list of irrelevant, meaningless and pseudolegal questions that no lawmaker or other government prosecutor is going to waste time responding to. And then Peymon will tell his marks that because no one spent hours responding to this crap, it means this is a tacit admission that there is no law requiring you to file returns and pay taxes. So Peymon will say that you can argue in court that you can't be convicted because no one explained the law to you and showed it was correct.

The problem with all of that is that it is not true. Courts ignore that as a defense and will not accept it as a Cheek defense against willfulness. And again, Peymon did not argue this issue in his own suit. Instead he just claimed that the IRS couldn't get the proposed liability amount correct. If Peymon knows the correct and proper way to argue a non-filing case, then why did he not show the court that lawmakers failed to answer his questions about the tax law and prove to him that they are correct and legal?

I respectfully submit that you refer to the arguments as gibberish because you have too much invested to ever entertain the idea that there is actual substance in that gibbersh. That seems to be what Joe Bannister's 12 jurers concluded.

And you know why Peymon doesn't use these "Gibbersh" arguments in court. Because court judges are guaranteed to not only ignore them, but to fine the defendant heavily for even attempting to introduce these arguments. And court judges do prohibit those letters to lawmakers ever being entered into evidene because they are quite afraid that all the gibberish will ring true with a random selection of jurers "unenlightened" by lawschool.

If you look at https://www.freedomlawschool.org/step-4#Student-VC
you will find a couple of dozen victory stories FLS has had in helping their students successfully avoid the IRS taking away their property.

Ok, let's do that:

Case #1 - Taxpayer had a proposed liability by the IRS that they contested in a due process hearing and then went to Tax Court, which IRS stipulated with the defendant to abate the liability due to the IRS failing to send the notice of deficiency to the last known address of the taxpayer. That is a critical fault of a mandatory requirement for the audit process. And the IRS recognizes it which is why they abated the liability. But it has nothing to do with the nonsense that Peymon argues. Any tax lawyer would have recognized the issue and raised it during the due process hearing. Why Peymon and FLS did not do so until it got to Tax Court indicates that he overlooked it (showing his ignorance of tax procedure) or just wanted to get the case into court at the taxpayer's expense so he could pretend that he had an amazing victory. The problem here are the magic words "without prejudice" in the stipulation. That simply means that the IRS can proceed again with the assessment (provided that they follow procedures correctly). Since I am not seeing FLS claiming any other victories for this case, I am guessing that the taxpayer got assessed again. Some victory.

Case #2 - Taxpayer was denied a Collection Due Process hearing. Peymon gets them into Tax Court and IRS Counsel moves to remand the case back to Appeals so that the taxpayer can have a face-to-face hearing that they requested. Again, this is a procedural issue and Peymon didn't use any of his stupid arguments to get the taxpayer out of their liability. I note that the IRS motion mentions that the taxpayer had at one point been arguing frivolous positions. No mention of what happened to this taxpayer after they got their face-to-face meeting.

These comments on the surface seem to be rich in fresh insights. I need to re-review these 2 cases in light of your comments, and contemplate some more.

I went through the rest of the so-called "victories" and they were basically for the same issue - IRS not following established guidelines for providing proper notice for deficiency assessments or collection activity. Only one case appears to have actually gone to trial (see below), all the rest were settled or resolved prior to trial. None of the cases featured any relation between their results and Peymon's theories on the income tax being illegal.

The one case that went to trial resulted in a win for the taxpayer because the IRS was unable to verify the reported income (due to the agent not keeping accurate records of the audit, having faulty memory and no third-party records due to the employer being out of business). Again, this result had nothing to do with Peymon arguing his nonsense in open court and the court ruling in favor of his "client" due to Peymon's so-called brilliance.

In summary, all Peymon is doing is capitalizing on IRS unforced errors that should have never been made in the first place and for which no court is going to stand. That is the law and which is why the IRS immediately resolved most of these cases before they ever had to go to trial. But none of these prove that Peymon is correct about his frivolous positions. While I can agree that he did a service to these people in getting the IRS to adhere to its procedures, the sad thing is that he misleading people by implying his stupid anti-tax arguments are correct. If anything, these examples show that the courts and the IRS do ultimately follow the law and are not just rubber-stamping decisions.

Much of the message at Peymon's website is that the IRS and the courts do ultimately follow the law, as you say, and that they consistently have a real challange following basic legal requirements in the IRC. This appears due to a severe morale and competence problem at the IRS, which is evident to anyone who looks through many of the references under his step 2 and step 3 sections.

I would like to follow up with Peymon regarding this recent appeals court loss (and post here his viewpoint on it), but feel unable to collect all the pertinant details to effectively question Peymon.

The link to the court case is in the promoter thread about Mottahedeh, I am not going to bother to link it for you, since it will be a waste of my time. And I can save you some time by guessing what Peymon will say. He will claim that the court and the IRS are corrupt and/or unable to interpret the law correctly. They didn't listen to him, they violated procedures and his rights. I doubt that he will say he made any mistakes in his case. And he will tell you a bunch of lies to make it seem that he is correct.

And then you will believe him.

If I blindly accepted everything Peymon says, then I wouldn't be trying to study and understand the legal practicioner point of view. And there doesn't seem to be much interest amongst the law practicioners in understanding what legally uneducated people perceive as logic within the gibberish. The court judges certainly dont seem to want juries to hear any of this during trials.