CtCer About to Get Fired

[Disilloosianed]

I'm sort of amused by the "model employer" part. He "rarely" misses a day. Wow...keep fighting the good fight, brother. *sigh*

[Kimokeo]

Publication 1494, available at irs.gov will give you the exempt portion of wages from levy.

If he is contract labor, that's different and usually means 100% levy.

An installment agreement is a quick way to obtain release of levy and is quite easy to obtain.

Why do people who don't believe in the law as written, believe they aren't subject to said laws, aren't real people or stick figures or whatever they call themselves, non-citizens or non-somethings, that they would then be eligible for unemployment benefits?

Isn't unemployment benefits only eligible to Federal gov't employees, federal enclave people, strawmen and strawwomen, illuminati fiends, and things within DC?

[.]

Yeah, one would think that they would think that signing the certification that you were actively seeking work for the period of time be compensated would amount to acquiesing in some sort of lifetime bondage or slavery. Probably has a jurat and everything.

Obviously would need to be refused for value, UCC blah, blah, blah. Perhaps a little amusement is in store for someone in some state UC office.

[Quidnunc]

As far as the guy wanting to get his unemployment and not pay taxes, here's my experience with this type of thinking.

A number of years ago, I went to visit a friend living in the Puna area of Hawaii (for those of you familiar with the area, that probably explains a lot). When we left the Hilo airport, we passed a Hawaiian Independence sign. She explained that Hawaii was never properly annexed, so therefore, no one there had to pay taxes. I explained that the argument had been shot down many times in court, but she was in too deep to get it. The part that annoyed me the most was that all the people she knew were on welfare. I kind of get the people who want to go off the grid, grow their own food, etc. so they can avoid supporting the government. What I don't get is the people who want as many handouts as they can get from the government, but don't think they should be the ones paying for it. To me, the most amazing part is that none of them see any hypocrisy whatsoever in this.

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

As far as the guy wanting to get his unemployment and not pay taxes, here's my experience with this type of thinking.

A number of years ago, I went to visit a friend living in the Puna area of Hawaii (for those of you familiar with the area, that probably explains a lot). When we left the Hilo airport, we passed a Hawaiian Independence sign. She explained that Hawaii was never properly annexed, so therefore, no one there had to pay taxes. I explained that the argument had been shot down many times in court, but she was in too deep to get it. The part that annoyed me the most was that all the people she knew were on welfare. I kind of get the people who want to go off the grid, grow their own food, etc. so they can avoid supporting the government. What I don't get is the people who want as many handouts as they can get from the government, but don't think they should be the ones paying for it. To me, the most amazing part is that none of them see any hypocrisy whatsoever in this.

IMO, it's because at heart they're freeloaders. My "favorite" TP went through a lot of trouble to get on disability after he wrenched his knee. I always want to ask him just where he thinks that money comes from but I really don't have any desire to engage him in conversation and feel I.Q. oozing from my ears.

[fortinbras]

I have no idea where this guy read "numerous Supreme Court opinions" that an IRS notice is not a levy. An IRS notice of lien is the title of the tax lien. Although it is titled a "notice" it is the tax lien itself, and yes it has legal effect. By the way, one thing the courts have been real clear on: The IRS tax liens (= the "Notices of Lien") are governed by federal law and, although filed in state/county registries, are not governed by (and do not have to comply with) the state law provisions about UCC liens or real estate liens. As a matter of fact, to accommodate this legal fact, most states have adopted a Uniform Law on Federal Tax Liens.

[The Observer]

An IRS notice of lien is the title of the tax lien. Although it is titled a "notice" it is the tax lien itself, and yes it has legal effect.

I am sorry, but that is not correct. The tax lien is not the "notice of lien" but an abstract. The notice of lien is exactly that, a notice to the public that the government has established a lien against all assets of the taxpayer. The notice does have a legal effect, but only in terms of perfecting the tax lien as per the UCC requirements in providing notification to potential and actual creditors of the taxpayer. As an example the IRS as a practice issues notices of levies against bank accounts and wages of delinquent taxpayers against whom the federal tax lien has arisen without recording the notice of federal tax lien. The absence of a notice of tax lien does not necessarily preclude the government from exercising its authority to collect back taxes.

[Famspear]

An IRS notice of lien is the title of the tax lien. Although it is titled a "notice" it is the tax lien itself, and yes it has legal effect.

I am sorry, but that is not correct. The tax lien is not the "notice of lien" but an abstract. The notice of lien is exactly that, a notice to the public that the government has established a lien against all assets of the taxpayer. The notice does have a legal effect, but only in terms of perfecting the tax lien as per the UCC requirements in providing notification to potential and actual creditors of the taxpayer. As an example the IRS as a practice issues notices of levies against bank accounts and wages of delinquent taxpayers against whom the federal tax lien has arisen without recording the notice of federal tax lien. The absence of a notice of tax lien does not necessarily preclude the government from exercising its authority to collect back taxes.

(bolding added).

Stated another way: No one has ever "seen" a "tax lien" in the abstract sense. A tax lien is not a document or something you can see or touch. A tax lien is an interest in, or encumbrance on, property -- an interest generally created by operation of law, to secure the satisfaction of a tax liability.

By the time the document called the notice of federal tax lien has been signed, issued and recorded in the real or personal property records of the applicable jurisdiction, the lien itself has already been in existence for some time -- as against the taxpayer. The valid tax lien exists as against the taxpayer without the need for the existence of a "notice of federal tax lien".

As The Observer has said, the purpose of the recordation of the notice of federal tax lien is to perfect the already existing lien on the taxpayer's property -- to establish the priority of the IRS's property interest as against third parties (such as other creditors or transferees) who may also claim an interest in the same property. The recordation (the filing) of the notice serves a purpose similar to the recordation of a "financing statement" under article 9 of the UCC. In other words, as between the IRS and the third party: "Who gets paid first out of the limited proceeds of the sale of the property? Who gets stuck with an unsatisfied claim when the value of the property is not sufficient to cover both the IRS claim and the third party claim in full?"

[grixit]

It's the same as the dimwits who think there's some kind of skullduggery going on when they buy a car and receive a "certificate of title". They then complain that the government has stolen the title, and just given them this certificate. Then they sue to get the actual title. No one seems to be able to make them understand that "title" is the intangible fact that they own the car, while "certificate of title" is a piece of paper that records that fact.

[Quixote]

In the unlikely event that an employer does not understand that the notice of levy was sent by IRS to effect a levy, the instructions are fairly clear:

Send us the taxpayer's take home pay minus the exempt amount which is described below, on the same dates that payments are made, or are due, to the taxpayer.

Form 668-W(c)(DO)

[Gregg]

I almost hired a TP once a few years back, when he first wanted 99 exemptions I said I wouldn't do that, he said it was his right to claim as he saw fit blah blah blah and tried to convince me of the usual arguments, so I told him, "sorry, I'm not going to hire you after all". He threatened to sue me, and fifteen other things, I just listened and when he was done I told him to get out of my office.....never heard from him again...

[LPC]

I have no idea where this guy read "numerous Supreme Court opinions" that an IRS notice is not a levy.

There is an old (1947) Circuit Court opinion, often cited by tax deniers, that stated:

“Nothing alleged to have been done amounts to a levy, which requires that the property be brought into a legal custody through seizure, actually or constructive... Levy is not effected by mere notice.” United States v. O’Dell, 160 F.2d 304, 307 (6th Cir. 1947) (emphasis added).

From the Tax Protester FAQ (http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#notices):

“Constructive seizure” is exactly what a notice of levy is intended to achieve, but the O’Dell court apparently decided that the government hadn’t served enough documents, stating:

“Section 3692 [of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939] does not prescribe any procedure for accomplishing a levy upon a bank account. The method followed in the cases is that of issuing warrants of distraint, making the bank a party, and serving with the notice of levy copy of the warrants of distraint and notice of lien. [citations omitted] No warrants of distraint were issued here.”

So the O’Dell court believed that a levy could be made by serving a “notice of levy” along with a “warrant of distraint” and “notice of lien,” and the problem was that the IRS had omitted the “warrant of distraint.” (The issuance of warrants by the officers of the IRS—and not any court—was authorized by section 3692 of the 1939 Code, which stated that “the collector may levy, or by warrant may authorize a deputy collector to levy, upon all property and rights to property....”) But the O’Dell case was decided under the tax code enacted in 1939, and at least one other Circuit Court disagreed that a “warrant of distraint” was needed. United States v. Eiland, 224 F. 2d 118, 121 (4th Cir. 1955). The issue became an historical footnote when Congress enacted the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, because the word “warrant” was not included in section 6331 (which is the successor to section 3692 of the 1939 Code, and authorizes the IRS to levy on property). Under the 1954 code, courts have unanimously agreed that service of a “notice of levy” is sufficient to make a levy and that the holding of the O’Dell decision is no longer valid.

“In their complaint, the plaintiffs cite to the Internal Revenue Code and the supporting regulations from 1844 (14 STAT.107), 1939 (26 U.S.C. section 3692) and 1954 (1954 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News 4555, House Rep. No. 1337). Each of these laws allows a ‘collector’ to levy on property to collect taxes, but requires that the ‘collector’ authorize BY WARRANT a deputy collector to levy. They also cite a number of cases which held that a warrant of distraint is a procedural requirement. All of the cases were decided by 1957.

“The law has changed. 26 U.S.C. section 3692 has been repealed and replaced by 26 U.S.C. section 6331, which authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to collect unpaid taxes by levy upon all property and right to property belonging to the taxpayer. 26 U.S.C. section 6331(a). The term levy includes ‘the power of distraint and seizure by any means.’ 26 U.S.C. section 6331(b). Neither the statute nor the implementing regulations at 26 C.F.R. section 301.6331 require that a warrant of distraint be obtained, and there is no further distinction between the collector (now district director) and a deputy collector (now revenue officer).”

Leady v. United States, 74 AFTR2d ¶94-5225, 94 TNT 156-36, No. 92-0094-C (U.S.D.C. N.D. W.Va. 7/15/1994) (footnote omitted).

See also, Rosenblum v. United States, 300 F.2d 843 (1st Cir. 1962); United States v. Manufacturers National Bank, 198 F.Supp. 157 (N.D. N.Y. 1961); Boyajin v. United States, 825 F. Supp. 714 (E.D. Pa. 1993).

[ASITStands]

Right on target Dan!

Here's the latest from 'deslocc' mentioning O'Dell

He's taking his cues from Bill Conklin.

Observation: Now that Bulten's back maybe CtCers will start noticing Quatloos again. Quatloos has been watching them but most of them are oblivious to comments made here.

Bulten won't be able to resist reading. The only question will be how long it takes for him to post over here. Maybe there should be a poll to that effect. I'll leave that to others.

[Imalawman]

As I wrapped up my practice on the enforcement side, my record was 5-0 against CTC'ers. It wasn't even close. At least some freedom law school crackpots won some motions. CTC'ers don't even get to trial, its such an easy SMJ. After litigating several case, CTC is by far the weakest and ineffective TP argument to try in court. But I'm sure Mr. Bulton will have some explanation. I'm curious to see his explanation of the 3rd circuit.

[.]

I'm curious to see his explanation of the 3rd circuit.

Like he's dumb enough to provide that in public. Oh, wait, I forgot that he's a TP. Look forward to it soon.

[LPC]

I'm curious to see his [Bulten's] explanation of the 3rd circuit.

Sorry, but did you mean 6th Circuit (which is the circuit that ruled against Hendrickson)?

I'm asking because I don't know what Bulten has to do with the 3rd Circuit, or what might have happened in the 3rd Circuit that Bulten would be explaining.

[Imalawman]

I'm curious to see his [Bulten's] explanation of the 3rd circuit.

Sorry, but did you mean 6th Circuit (which is the circuit that ruled against Hendrickson)?

I'm asking because I don't know what Bulten has to do with the 3rd Circuit, or what might have happened in the 3rd Circuit that Bulten would be explaining.

Oop's sorry, just a brain lapse.