Yes, You Are Missing Something

[Dr. Caligari]

LostHopes post of the day:

Perhaps I'm missing something, but if a person has filed a return which is true and correct, and sworn to, and not frivolous, and if the IRS has no personal knowledge of any payments the person may have received, or any evidence to contradict their sworn testimony, then why should anyone even consider agreeing to an audit?

Isn't the proper response simply to notify the particular IRS agent that he's in violation of the criminal code for attempting to conduct an audit not authorized by law, and for attempting to conduct an audit not authorized by a court, and for attempting to commit extortion under color of law, and for attempting to commit racketeering, and for possibly other offenses?

Shouldn't one simply inform the IRS agent that he's not entitled to perform or even request an audit without proper jurisdiction and authorization, and that any additional attempt to extort money will result in the referral of the matter to both the federal and state grand juries for further investigation? Isn't this what we would do if any other organization tried to extort money from us that was not owed?

Perhaps a letter not unlike the one recently posted by Pete, which brilliantly mimics the format of IRS "notifications," would be in order.

Remember: We're not breaking the law. THEY ARE! We don't have to cite any law concerning the definition of income. THEY DO! We're not at risk of going to jail. THEY ARE.

Don't play their game. Don't be put on defense. If it were me, I would make THEM cite the appropriate law that gives them their alleged authority. I would make THEM cite the law that says: "Private pay is income." And if they couldn't, I'd let THEM know that the state and federal grand jury may soon learn of the matter.

My opinion, at least.

[Famspear]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but if a person has filed a return which is true and correct, and sworn to, and not frivolous, and if the IRS has no personal knowledge of any payments the person may have received, or any evidence to contradict their sworn testimony, then why should anyone even consider agreeing to an audit?

Good question. Why don't you just "disagree to the audit," and see what happens?

Isn't the proper response simply to notify the particular IRS agent that he's in violation of the criminal code for attempting to conduct an audit not authorized by law, and for attempting to conduct an audit not authorized by a court, and for attempting to commit extortion under color of law, and for attempting to commit racketeering, and for possibly other offenses?

No that would be THE STUPID RESPONSE.

Shouldn't one simply inform the IRS agent that he's not entitled to perform or even request an audit without proper jurisdiction and authorization, and that any additional attempt to extort money will result in the referral of the matter to both the federal and state grand juries for further investigation?

No, one simply shouldn't do that, because (A) it's not correct, and (B) that kind of response will make you look STUPID (see above), and (C) it won't do any good anyway.

Isn't this what we would do if any other organization tried to extort money from us that was not owed?

Can you read? Read this: S-T-U-P-I-D. S-T-U-P-I-D.

Get it?

I knew you wouldn't get it.

Perhaps a letter not unlike the one recently posted by Pete, which brilliantly mimics the format of IRS "notifications," would be in order.

Perhaps a letter to the Tooth Fairy will get you a ride on the next shuttle to the Planet Neptune.

Remember: We're not breaking the law. THEY ARE! We don't have to cite any law concerning the definition of income. THEY DO! We're not at risk of going to jail. THEY ARE.

Remember: You follow Peter Hendrickson's Cracking the Code. You are S-T-U-P-I-D.

Don't play their game. Don't be put on defense. If it were me, I would make THEM cite the appropriate law that gives them their alleged authority. I would make THEM cite the law that says: "Private pay is income." And if they couldn't, I'd let THEM know that the state and federal grand jury may soon learn of the matter.

Oh, boy, that's really gonna scare a Revenue Agent of the Internal Revenue Service. Oooooohhhh, I bet you'll have 'em just quakin' in their boots. Put 'em on DEE-fense! Wow.

[notorial dissent]

Or at the very least provide them with a good chuckle as they forward in on to investigations or where ever the send the cases of the irredeemably stupid. Also means one less audit to do, maybe.

[Quixote]

Perhaps I'm missing something ...

A portion of his frontal lobe? The gene for common sense? The possibities are endless.

[webhick]

Perhaps I'm missing something ...

A portion of his frontal lobe? The gene for common sense? The possibities are endless.

His binky. Expect him to start crying for it soon. You'll be able to tell when he starts because there will be a tear-streaked mess in the corner emitting loud throaty sobs for maximum attention.