"TaxRearcher" at losthorizons admits he/she is lost

[Famspear]

A user inaptly called "TaxResearcher" writes, at losthorizons:

I just received my CDP Notice of Determination from Appeals today [Friday, July 18, 2008]. They ruled against me and propose that the lien/levy be used to collect my outstanding balances.

Elsewhere in IRS-land, I have 2 returns (TY2003 and TY2004) that received 3178SC letters – which I responded to last week.

There are 3 years that I have not had any correspondence on since April 2008. These returns haven't been responded to yet.

The determination letter states that I have 30 days to file a petition in tax court. It <appears> that I could also file in district court?

Here are my questions:

1) What do I do now? I was hoping that my amended returns would be processed by this time and my balances would be zero. Since they are not, I have no idea how to proceed.

2) I have no legal background and I am not comfortable filing a petition in any court. I need help!!!

3) The only other option I see is to try and work out an installment agreement and hope that the amended returns get processed in the interim – but why would they if I am paying monthly?

I really need help. I have no idea what to do next. I feel like I am at the bottom of the 9th and I am in enemy territory.

Please help.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=752

You need help? Here are some tips.

First, you normally should have 90 days to file a Tax Court petition, not 30 days. Go back and read the notice. Is it a statutory notice of deficiency (90 day letter), or is it just a 30 day letter?

Second, you generally cannot maintain federal tax litigation in U.S. District Court without first paying the tax that the IRS says is owed in full, and then suing for a refund. It's called the Flora full payment rule.

Third, since you say that you have no legal background and since you say that you are not comfortable filing a petition in any court, and since you sound desperate, we will assume that your use of the moniker "TaxResearcher" at losthorizons was nothing more than an unconscious attempt to provide some black humour for the benefit of the regulars here at Quatloos who, unlike yourself, are not lost somewhere in the parallel universe of PeterEricBlowhardMeister delusion about the nature of U.S. federal income taxation. If you were trying to provide a few laughs -- congratulations; it worked.

Fourth, try not to mix your sports metaphors. The "bottom of the 9th" is a baseball concept, whereas "enemy territory" is a football metaphor. Mixing your sports metaphors automatically invalidates any federal income tax positions you take.

Seriously, you've really gotten yourself into a mess -- in part by arrogating legal knowledge that you obviously don't have. You trusted the ravings of Peter Eric Hendrickson, an ex-con with no legal, tax, or accounting expertise - a guy who has already spent time in prison on a federal tax conviction. Blowhard Hendrickson is wrong. Cracking the Code is wrong.

Reallll smart. You have no idea what to do next, eh? Welllllll "TaxResearcher", Petey-poo and his followers cannot help you. He and the rest of his followers are as clueless as you are.

By the way, Petey has his hands full with his own federal tax problems. You see, he tried to use Cracking the Code too.

You want help? You want some good advice. Abandon the Cracking the Code crap and try to get yourself right with the tax man. Grovel. Beg. Really humiliate yourself. Before it's too late.

[LPC]

First, you normally should have 90 days to file a Tax Court petition, not 30 days. Go back and read the notice. Is it a statutory notice of deficiency (90 day letter), or is it just a 30 day letter?

Actually, I think "TaxResearcher" is right, because a collection due process notice of determination must be appealed to the Tax Court within 30 days. See IRC section 6330(d).

Second, you generally cannot maintain federal tax litigation in U.S. District Court without first paying the tax that the IRS says is owed in full, and then suing for a refund. It's called the Flora full payment rule.

This time TR is two years late.

Before it was amended in 2006, section 6330(d) allowed a CDP appeal to District Court or to Tax Court, but the appeal to Tax Court was proper only if the Tax Court had jurisdiction of the underlying tax liability. So there were numerous appeals of collection actions on frivolous return penalties to District Courts because the Tax Court didn't have any jurisdiction over frivolous return penalties.

The amendment to section 6330(d) made all collection due process determinations appealable to the Tax Court, so the DCs no longer have any jurisdiction.

[jkeeb]

A CDP hearing, two years into the same failed process and three years unheard from?

Son, you're in your first set of a five game match. You are still on the front nine. You haven't tipped off for the second half. You are midway through the second period on the frozen pond. Still in the prelims of the 100 yard dash.

[grixit]

You're headed for the steepest part of the track with a bent runner. It's the alligator pole vaulting championship-- watch out for the soft mud. Kong's got you cornered and not a mushroom in sight. Three more sets to go, and you can hear the Great Stillettoni opening a beer. It's high noon, and Clint Eastwood is waiting. More focus, Glasshoppah, the whirling blades are next. This time you have to roll Gene Chapman uphill. Captain, the controls are not responding!

[Quixote]

Welllllll "TaxResearcher", Petey-poo and his followers cannot help you. He and the rest of his followers are as clueless as you are.

That doesn't stop them from trying. douglas has suggested he check two previous threads in which LostHeads who have lost their own cases provided advice on how to file a Tax Court case.

[jkeeb]

You have jumped off the cliff at Acapulco and on the way down you realize you mistimed the waves.

[notorial dissent]

To put it succinctly, YOU’RE SCREWED, and you did it ah yo’ widdle self.

[Famspear]

First, you normally should have 90 days to file a Tax Court petition, not 30 days. Go back and read the notice. Is it a statutory notice of deficiency (90 day letter), or is it just a 30 day letter?

Actually, I think "TaxResearcher" is right, because a collection due process notice of determination must be appealed to the Tax Court within 30 days. See IRC section 6330(d).

Oops, I stand corrected.

[Famspear]

"TaxResearcher" has begun a new thread at losthorizons:

I need help and I need it bad. For any of you licensed attorneys (or otherwise legally well-versed non-attorneys), I am in need of your assistance. I am willing to turn over a portion of my rather large refund to you for your time and effort.

1) My CDP hearing ruled against me.
2) I have about 3 weeks to file a petition in tax court. I have neither the knowledge or inclination to do this properly.
3) I am trying to hold off lien and levy actions against me and my wife.
4) I have filed 1040X and 4852 for Tax Years 2000-2004 – all at the same time in the same envelope. I have received 3178 for TY2003 and 2004, of which I responded via letter two weeks ago. I have not heard a word on TY2000, 2001, and 2002 but did confirm that they have been received by the IRS on a call I made to them on June 12.
5) I want to get all these tax years’ 1040Xs processed so that my record at IRS is properly updated.
6) I have all records – letters and phone calls – meticulously documented.

Please help. I understand the truth but do not have the time to properly handle this on my own. I can’t find anybody that is willing to help.

Thanks.

(bolding added)

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=779

Help him, PETERERICBLOWHARDMEISTER!!!!! Hellllllpppp!

[Quixote]

Help him, PETERERICBLOWHARDMEISTER!!!!! Hellllllpppp

I'm sure Pete will share his secrets for successful litigation and everything will be fine.

[Gregg]

I think the process is at a point for a lot of the loserheads that we may see an increasing number of desperate people over there, they're are many of them that are a few months from losing their homes etc...

This is going to be ugly.

[Famspear]

"mutter" at losthorizons responds to TaxReseacher":

I am sorry my friend but what can be done is [sic] such a short period of time?

What would your petition say? Here is the reality of it. This is a contest about how the law is being applied[.] all the judge has to do is claim you are misinterpreting the law.

If you wish to stop a lien or levy then read up on here about how a 23c is required before collection actions. They should have had one done before any CDPH hearing I believe. Be that as it may the law states and courts have ruled a 23c is required before a tax is owed. Petes article argues this very well. So demand it from them[;] make sure the law and regs where [sic] followed, yes YOU are going to have to do some research, or any lien/levy notice is void. That may be your bases [sic] for your tax court petition.

(bolding added).

How encouraging.

EDIT: At what point, if any, will "TaxResearcher" slowly come to the realization that his fellow dumbclucks at losthorizons are as totally clueless as he is?

[Famspear]

At this point, if "TaxResearcher" were a person of normal psychological makeup, he would respond angrily to "mutter's" mindless mutterings -- with something like this:

Look, you frickin' doofus, I am in serious straits here! I followed Cracking the Code! I trusted Peter Hendrickson, and I trusted all you guys! I did everything I was supposed to do! There is no frickin' issue here about any unassessed tax, or any failure by the IRS to use form 23c to make the assessment! Stop bringing up crap that doesn't even apply!

You people said that Cracking the Code was the truth! Well, Pete lost his own case, and I cannot find one single one of you doofuses who has ever prevailed in court using Pete's book!

Now it's time to put up or shut up! If Cracking the Code is the truth, then why am I in the situation I'm in today??!!?! Come on, give me something specific that I can use to win! If they take my property, I am gonna sue Peter Hendrickson for everything he's got!

But maybe "TaxResearcher" is not a normal person.

[Imalawman]

At this point, if "TaxResearcher" were a person of normal psychological makeup, he would respond angrily to "mutter's" mindless mutterings -- with something like this:

Look, you frickin' doofus, I am in serious straits here! I followed Cracking the Code! I trusted Peter Hendrickson, and I trusted all you guys! I did everything I was supposed to do! There is no frickin' issue here about any unassessed tax, or any failure by the IRS to use form 23c to make the assessment! Stop bringing up crap that doesn't even apply!

You people said that Cracking the Code was the truth! Well, Pete lost his own case, and I cannot find one single one of you doofuses who has ever prevailed in court using Pete's book!

Now it's time to put up or shut up! If Cracking the Code is the truth, then why am I in the situation I'm in today??!!?! Come on, give me something specific that I can use to win! If they take my property, I am gonna sue Peter Hendrickson for everything he's got!

But maybe "TaxResearcher" is not a normal person.

And thus we witness Famspear's epiphany.

[Quixote]

What would your petition say? Here is the reality of it. This is a contest about how the law is being applied[.] all the judge has to do is claim you are misinterpreting the law.

If you wish to stop a lien or levy then read up on here about how a 23c is required before collection actions.

That may be your bases [sic] for your tax court petition.

If anyone posting at LH were of average intelligence, he would point out the flaw in mutter's reasoning. If one assumes that the judge will reject any legal argument that TaxResearcher presents, then all arguments are equally worthless. If mutter's assumption were correct, then even if he were right about Form 23C, the judge would just say he's wrong and Taxresearcher would lose.

Be that as it may the law states and courts have ruled a 23c is required before a tax is owed. Petes article argues this very well. So demand it from them[;] make sure the law and regs where [sic] followed, yes YOU are going to have to do some research

Again mutter contradicts himself. (Maybe he mutters so he can pretend people didn't hear him correctly. That doesn't work with written statements.) If the courts have ruled that a properly executed Form 23c is necessary, why did Pete have to argue that point? A mention of it with citations to case law would be all that was needed. And if Pete or the courts have already shown that a 23c is needed, why would Taxresearcher have to research that point again? Tax deniers are the only "scholars" I know who repeatedly research questions that countless others have supposedly already settled.

[.]

Tax deniers are the only "scholars" I know who repeatedly research questions that countless others have supposedly already settled.

Which is why TaxResearcher, now that he's deep into lien and levy-land, needs to call on the supreme expertise and gibberish-generating skills of Van Pelt. After all, when one pile of garbage doesn't work, you must try another. It's the TP way.

Is Van Pelt still working out of mommy's basement? Have there been any sightings lately?

[fortinbras]

Is this literally true, that Van Pelt is living with his parent(s)??
Oddly enough, he has renounced - or at least discarded - the Van Pelt name, calling himself David Merrill and getting cranked whenever he's called Van Pelt. I feel sure that the rest of the Van Pelt family is very comfortable with his change of name.

[The Observer]

Is this literally true, that Van Pelt is living with his parent(s)??

I am not sure that it is true; most of the comments accusing him of being dependent on his parents seem to be coming to that conclusion due to the fact that Van Pelt has a daughter who is not receiving child support from him and that he has no visible means of support (other than his maintained claims that people are paying him for his silly UCC theories).

[Demosthenes]

I think the daughter is past child support age.

[LPC]

Be that as it may the law states and courts have ruled a 23c is required before a tax is owed. Petes article argues this very well. So demand it from them[;] make sure the law and regs where [sic] followed, yes YOU are going to have to do some research

Again mutter contradicts himself. (Maybe he mutters so he can pretend people didn't hear him correctly. That doesn't work with written statements.) If the courts have ruled that a properly executed Form 23c is necessary, why did Pete have to argue that point? A mention of it with citations to case law would be all that was needed. And if Pete or the courts have already shown that a 23c is needed, why would Taxresearcher have to research that point again? Tax deniers are the only "scholars" I know who repeatedly research questions that countless others have supposedly already settled.

And reach the wrong result.

The courts have repeatedly ruled that a Form 23C is NOT required for a valid assessment. See, for example, Roberts v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 365 (2002), aff'd 329 F.3d 1224 (11th Cir. 2003), in which the Tax Court explained:

According to petitioner, petitioner's "motion addresses only one error; the non-existence of an assessment" with respect to petitioner's taxable year 1996. In support of his contention that respondent did not make an assessment with respect to that year, petitioner points out that "The appeals officer acknowledged that there is no 23C document in Petitioner's case" and that, in making the assessment with respect to petitioner's taxable year 1996, respondent did not use Form 23C, Assessment Certificate -- Summary Record of Assessments (Form 23C), but instead used a computer and a computer-generated report known as Revenue Accounting Control System (RACS) Report 006 (RACS 006).

As we understand petitioner's position, he is arguing that, because respondent used a computer and RACS 006, instead of Form 23C, to make an assessment with respect to petitioner's taxable year 1996, he has shown an irregularity in respondent's assessment procedure with respect to that year. That is because, according to petitioner, respondent's failure to use Form 23C to make an assessment with respect to petitioner's taxable year 1996 means that there was no signed summary record of assessment, as required by section 6203 and section 301.6203-1, Proced. & Admin. Regs., and consequently no assessment, or at least no valid assessment, by respondent with respect to that year. Having shown what petitioner maintains is an irregularity in respondent's assessment procedure with respect to his taxable year 1996, petitioner further argues that the Appeals officer's reliance on Form 4340 to verify that respondent made a valid assessment with respect to that year does not satisfy the requirements of section 6330(c)(1) that the Appeals officer obtain verification that the requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure have been met.

We reject petitioner's position. As petitioner is aware from Lester v. United States, No. 13-96-15835 MA, Adv. No. 97-1078M (D.N.M. July 7, 1998), which he cites in petitioner's motion and in petitioner's response to respondent's motion, respondent has for a number of years been engaged in making a transition in respondent's assessment procedure from the general use of a manually prepared Form 23C to the general use of RACS 006. See also, e.g., Kruger v. United States, 88 AFTR 2d 2001-5865, at 2001-5867, 2001-2 USTC par. 50,624, at 89,568 (D. Nev. 2001); Leier v. Dept. of Treasury/IRS, 73 AFTR 2d 94-533, at 94-534 (M.D. Fla. 1993); Tsimbidis v. IRS, 72 AFTR 2d 93-6640, at 93-6641 (E.D. Va. 1993). Nothing in the law supports, and we reject, what we understand to be petitioner's position that respondent's use in respondent's assessment procedure of RACS 006, instead of Form 23C, to make an assessment with respect to petitioner's taxable year 1996 does not comply with the requirements of section 6203 and section 301.6203-1, Proced. & Admin. Regs.

On the record before us, we find that respondent's use of RACS 006, instead of Form 23C, in making an assessment with respect to petitioner's taxable year 1996 did not constitute an irregularity in respondent's assessment procedure. On that record, we agree with respondent's position in respondent's motion, and we find: (1) There was no irregularity in respondent's assessment procedure with respect to petitioner's taxable year 1996, (2) respondent made a valid assessment with respect to that year, and (3) for purposes of complying with section 6330(c)(1), it was not an abuse of discretion for the Appeals officer to have relied on Form 4340 to verify respondent's assessment with respect to that year, see Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35 (2000). On the record before us, we reject the first and second allegations of error in the petition.

(Footnotes omitted; sanctions of $10,000 imposed for filing and maintaining a frivolous petition)