Lost at Lost Horizons

[iplawyer]

Here it is folks - how many more are going to end up like this before they realize they are idiots for following PH?

"Just a little history I have filed my 1040's with 4852's since 05 and have the 1st edition of Cracking the Code and have read it numerous times (no victories) and unfortunately I missed my date to rebut a CP504 for 07 which was due on Oct 16 and as fast as you can shake a stick (Oct 17) the service has levied our bank account removing all monies and threatening to levy my pay from the company (if they haven't already, b/c I refused to set up a payment plan) I exchange skilled labor for.

After being on the phone all day w/ numerous different agents to release the levy explaining Section § 6331. Levy and distraint
(a) Authority of Secretary
If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax. Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official. If the Secretary makes a finding that the collection of such tax is in jeopardy, notice and demand for immediate payment of such tax may be made by the Secretary and, upon failure or refusal to pay such tax, collection thereof by levy shall be lawful without regard to the 10-day period provided in this section.

because I am not federally connected.( I am a private-sector worker w/ no federal connection, like most of us here) I got no where. They said pay up in full or set up a payment plan or take it to tax court.

In the previous letters I received for 3 yrs in question I have rebutted all letters in a timely fashion, explained that I was not federally connected and requested a face to face examination hearing at a one of their service centers and that was not completely ignored.

The service is saying that the penalties are civil from filing frivolous returns and are not processable. Even though after my sworn testimony and sworn affidavits I am being unnoticed.

Am I correct that my due process has been violated and what can I do? I simply want a face to face hearing where I can prove my case and of course return to me what has recently been illegally taken from me. Petitioning the Tax Court really doesn't seem like a good remedy as I am then in their jurisdiction.

Is there anyone in the Tax Honesty movement that has any experience here that can shed a ray of light on options? Knowing the truth makes me want to fight for the rule of law yet the reality of being pinched financially is tearing up the household w/o the ability to pay the bills!

I am all ears!"

[Judge Roy Bean]

(a) Authority of Secretary
If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax. Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official. If the Secretary makes a finding that the collection of such tax is in jeopardy, notice and demand for immediate payment of such tax may be made by the Secretary and, upon failure or refusal to pay such tax, collection thereof by levy shall be lawful without regard to the 10-day period provided in this section.

because I am not federally connected.( I am a private-sector worker w/ no federal connection, like most of us here) I got no where. They said pay up in full or set up a payment plan or take it to tax court.

Reading and comprehension is the poster's weak point. Somehow he assumes the second paragraph authorizing levy powers against government officials and employees affects the first.

[jkeeb]

Reading and comprehension is the poster's weak point. Somehow he assumes the second paragraph authorizing levy powers against government officials and employees affects the first.

Well, yeah, his reading and comprehension is weak, the post was on Lost Heads website.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I think we all need to realize that the authors of the code are pinheads when it comes to making things understandable to ordinary people. This kind of codification invites misinterpretation and IT'S COSTING US ALL A DAMN FORTUNE to let scam promoters lure people into this crap.

When we allow the code to be written so that 95% of the public have no chance at understanding it we're creating a vast playground for opportunists.

[Imalawman]

I think we all need to realize that the authors of the code are pinheads when it comes to making things understandable to ordinary people. This kind of codification invites misinterpretation and IT'S COSTING US ALL A DAMN FORTUNE to let scam promoters lure people into this crap.

When we allow the code to be written so that 95% of the public have no chance at understanding it we're creating a vast playground for opportunists.

Maybe, but they're not using 1.704 regs to support their arguments they misinterpreting this phrase - "There is hereby imposed a tax". I'm not sure any clarification will prevent TPs from appearing. If it is clear, they'll just make other arguments. But I'm not opposed to clarifying the tax code.

[The Observer]

Clarification of the code, while commendable, won't stop the TP crowd from continuing to parse and torture the meaning of the legislators' intent. And any revising of the code will inspire them to come up with new conspiracy theories on what the NWO is trying to do now.

[Kimokeo]

"They said pay up in full or set up a payment plan or take it to tax court."

I've always had a problem with the third proposal.

If you have a problem with your neighbor over a contracted payment. You might demand payment or payments each month. Taking it to court is actually something you can do.

But, with the IRS, simply saying, "or take it to tax court" isn't really an option.

Doesn't the law determine when the tax court can be used? Sovereign immunity applies unless waived. So, telling someone to pay up or sue isn't really a fair option.

[Judge Roy Bean]

....
But, with the IRS, simply saying, "or take it to tax court" isn't really an option.

Why not?

The taxpayer has the option of paying in full, paying over time or disputing all or part of the issue in another venue where legitimate complaints can be heard, argued on the record, ruled on and even appealed before you have to pay. (Which I suspect is why some of those who are trying to delay the inevitable crank up the ol' word processor and start filing stuff.)

I can't attest to this first hand (and I stay as far away from trying to interpret the arcanities of the code) but someone around here would have some idea of how many and of what type of cases the tax court sees and rules on. Something tells me some portion of it is painfully boring and involves expert witnesses who really do understand FASB. [shudder]

[Gregg]

Maybe, but they're not using 1.704 regs to support their arguments they misinterpreting this phrase - "There is hereby imposed a tax". I'm not sure any clarification will prevent TPs from appearing. If it is clear, they'll just make other arguments. But I'm not opposed to clarifying the tax code.

What he said. I'm all in favor of simplifying the tax code, but when you have people arguing the meaning if "includes" you can at least see how we got what we have now.

[Famspear]

Clarification of the code, while commendable, won't stop the TP crowd from continuing to parse and torture the meaning of the legislators' intent. And any revising of the code will inspire them to come up with new conspiracy theories on what the NWO is trying to do now.

I agree completely. In my opinion, there is unfortunately no amount of clarity that could be added to the Internal Revenue Code that would satisfy tax protesters as a group. I don't care how you word the statute, these people will always say that up is down and black is white. We will always have these delusional people who bring these frivolous arguments. The basic problem is not the complexity of the language of the Code. The basic problem is the psychological makeup of the tax protesters.

EDIT: For example, the Tommy Cryers (attorney) and Oscar Stilleys (attorney) and Sherry Jacksons (CPA or former CPA) and Joe Banisters (former CPA) of the world are not victims of the complexity of the Code, etc. They are perfectly able, by virtue of their intellect, their training, and their experience, to understand what the law is. The problem with these people is psychological.

[Judge Roy Bean]

....

I agree completely. In my opinion, there is unfortunately no amount of clarity that could be added to the Internal Revenue Code that would satisfy tax protesters as a group. I don't care how you word the statute, these people will always say that up is down and black is white. We will always have these delusional people who bring these frivolous arguments. The basic problem is not the complexity of the language of the Code. The basic problem is the psychological makeup of the tax protesters.

EDIT: For example, the Tommy Cryers (attorney) and Oscar Stilleys (attorney) and Sherry Jacksons (CPA or former CPA) and Joe Banisters (former CPA) of the world are not victims of the complexity of the Code, etc. They are perfectly able, by virtue of their intellect, their training, and their experience, to understand what the law is. The problem with these people is psychological.

But they couldn't make the kinds of attempts they make if the objective of the tax code was to be unambiguous. Trust me, professionals who do adult education and training know how to write and produce materials that cannot be misunderstood in even complex subjects. Those who write tax code clearly do not.

[Leftcoaster]

How do you balance the need to right a simple, readable code with the ability of the professionally clever to find new ways of exploiting it?

In an ideal world you could write a simple law and it would apply to everyone equally. Unfortunately, the code gets massaged to allow exemptions and exceptions which are put there for any number of reasons (social engineering, political favouritism, what have you).

I'm accustomed to dealing with the ITA, and I thought it was pretty complex. I've since glanced at the IRC and have come to the conclusion that Canadians have very little to complain about when it comes to figuring out their tax returns.

Of course, as was mentioned earlier, if you have it set in your mind that taxes are illegal (translation: I'm greedy and don't want to pay) you will cling to whatever rationalization you deem necessary, and it won't matter how clearly the law is written.

[Nikki]

It doesn't matter if the the tax laws are unambiguous or written in Sanskrit.

Since the 16th Amendment wasn't ever ratified, the tax laws only apply within the Federal Zone, they can't be enforced against sovereign citizens - specifically not Citizens of the United States, and people are not earning income, but are exchanging their labor for FRNs on an equal basis, lucidity doesn't matter.

[notorial dissent]

The fact that Cryer, and Stilleys are attorneys and Banister were/are CPA’s only adds to the fact that they are using their knowledge to intentionally distort the law, only goes to showing that while clarity would be desired, it wouldn’t necessarily solve the problem, since they would again find some way to distort the clarification. The point being that they do not want to follow but rather distort and use the lack or perceived lack of clarity to their own ends, and have in fact been doing just that. I do think the gov’t makes it that much easier for them by writing the tax laws as poorly as they do.

[Imalawman]

When I discuss taxes with lay people I always explain that even if we were to start over again with a simple and concise tax code, given the complexity of our economy today, that simple code will be transformed into the mess that we have today in very short order. The tax law is complex because the economy is complex. While we could re-word certain phrases to be more clear, a drastic overhaul of the code simply isn't possible as long as 1. we maintain that tax expenditures are appropriate means of accomplishing government goals, 2. the economy continues to use more complex techniques of transferring wealth and conducting transactions.

[Famspear]

When I discuss taxes with lay people I always explain that even if we were to start over again with a simple and concise tax code, given the complexity of our economy today, that simple code will be transformed into the mess that we have today in very short order. The tax law is complex because the economy is complex. While we could re-word certain phrases to be more clear, a drastic overhaul of the code simply isn't possible as long as 1. we maintain that tax expenditures are appropriate means of accomplishing government goals, 2. the economy continues to use more complex techniques of transferring wealth and conducting transactions.

Imalawman, you took the words right out of my mouth.

To expand on this: The purpose of the drafters of tax statutes is not to make the law intelligible to ordinary people. Maybe that should be the goal, but it's not. And the problem with the tax code is not so much "ambiguity" as it is complexity. And the complexity of the tax code has been put there on purpose. The main problem is not that the tax code is inartfully drafted; the problem is that the tax code is for the most part well drafted. The Internal Revenue Code is, in my personal experience, one of the most well-crafted examples of federal statutory law -- after we put things into perspective by taking into consideration the varying, sometimes contradictory purposes for which the statute is enacted.

We want to realize tax revenues -- but we also want simplicity -- but of course we also want "fairness" (or the appearance of fairness) -- AND we also want to encourage certain behaviors (saving for retirement, etc.) and to discourage certain other behaviors. What we therefore end up with is a tax code -- the May 2008 CCH paper hard copy version of which (already out of date, of course, since Congress has enacted more tax laws since May) comes to over 5,400 pages of codified and non-codified statutes. The table of contents alone is about 49 pages.

[Leftcoaster]

the May 2008 CCH paper hard copy version of which (already out of date, of course, since Congress has enacted more tax laws since May) comes to over 5,400 pages of codified and non-codified statutes. The table of contents alone is about 49 pages.

I don't have a hard copy of the ITA (I prefer on-line) but the 2002 CCH version that I have at my desk clocks in at 2894 pages including ITAR, and indices. Of course that doesn't include the ETA (which governs various excise and consumption taxes, such as the GST), which would probably bring the total closer in size to the IRC.

Is their other Federal tax legislation in the US? or is it all contained within the IRC?

[Famspear]

Is their other Federal tax legislation in the US? or is it all contained within the IRC?

Yes, there are federal tax statutes outside the Code itself.

First, we consider the various Acts of Congress that have amended the Internal Revenue Code of 1954/1986 since August 16, 1954 (the date of enactment of the '54 Code) -- over 570 specific Acts of Congress, as I recall. While most of the texts of these Acts contain the actual language of the various amendments to the Code, some portions of these Acts are uncodified -- they are not in the Code itself. Examples of uncodified provisions would include the provisions stating the effective dates of the various amendments. In the CCH "paper" desk copy of the Code that I mentioned, summaries of these kinds of provisions are re-printed for convenience beneath the Code provisions to which they apply.

Also, there are tax statutes scattered in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (title 11 of the United States Code). For example: 11 USC 505. There are statutes that deal with the procedural aspects of federal tax law and practice, or with the Internal Revenue Service itself, etc., scattered around in other places, such as titles 2, 5, 12, 23, 28, and 42 of the United States Code. Heaven knows where else.....

[The Observer]

Heaven knows where else.....

Of course that is a veiled reference to the Holy Grail statute of the tax code that states no sovereign citizen wielding a red rubber stamp embossed with the words "Refused for Cause" and does not work as a gunsmith in the Virgin Islands or resides within a federal zone can be held liable for taxes. Many still seek for that statute but it is hidden cleverly in the Federal Statutes - even Indiana Jones can't find it.

[Leftcoaster]

Is their other Federal tax legislation in the US? or is it all contained within the IRC?

Yes, there are federal tax statutes outside the Code itself.

First, we consider the various Acts of Congress that have amended the Internal Revenue Code of 1954/1986 since August 16, 1954 (the date of enactment of the '54 Code) -- over 570 specific Acts of Congress, as I recall. While most of the texts of these Acts contain the actual language of the various amendments to the Code, some portions of these Acts are uncodified -- they are not in the Code itself. Examples of uncodified provisions would include the provisions stating the effective dates of the various amendments. In the CCH "paper" desk copy of the Code that I mentioned, summaries of these kinds of provisions are re-printed for convenience beneath the Code provisions to which they apply.

Also, there are tax statutes scattered in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (title 11 of the United States Code). For example: 11 USC 505. There are statutes that deal with the procedural aspects of federal tax law and practice, or with the Internal Revenue Service itself, etc., scattered around in other places, such as titles 2, 5, 12, 23, 28, and 42 of the United States Code. Heaven knows where else.....

Thanks!
Sounds messy.