Gain... what is it?

[Randall]

Perhaps you can cite to me when a "clerical error" "ruined your life". No? Didn't think so.

The allegorical information is nice, but is the IRS under any compunction to send you a polite letter? No, I don't think so. The law doesn't read "After a polite letter..." anywhere.

So you got one. Bully for you. Not everyone gets a polite letter. Several folk, myself included, immediately get a letter making threats of criminal prosecution.

Some folk don't even get a letter... they get a summons.

So let's dispense with allegorical evidence and consider this strictly by the book. A simple clerical error can ruin your life 100% of the time, according to the law. This has been shown time and again; Kuglin, for example. She has had her life ruined for what the criminal court decided was a stupid and unintentional error.

It wasn't the court that made the "stupid and unintentional error" it was Kuglin (and she likely knew better and chose not to admit such in court).

When I was three I refused to eat my peas. My mother showed me that is was a stupid error on my part and I paid the price. Kuglin now has to pay the price for her stupid error.

[ShadesOfKnight]

[quote="Randall]It wasn't the court that made the "stupid and unintentional error" it was Kuglin (and she likely knew better and chose not to admit such in court).

When I was three I refused to eat my peas. My mother showed me that is was a stupid error on my part and I paid the price. Kuglin now has to pay the price for her stupid error.[/quote]

And the price is to have your life ruined. From what has been said in this thread, she will probably never recover financially. A ruined life. Thanks for reaffirming my point.

[Imalawman]

Perhaps you can cite to me when a "clerical error" "ruined your life". No? Didn't think so.

The allegorical information is nice, but is the IRS under any compunction to send you a polite letter? No, I don't think so. The law doesn't read "After a polite letter..." anywhere.

So you got one. Bully for you. Not everyone gets a polite letter. Several folk, myself included, immediately get a letter making threats of criminal prosecution.

Some folk don't even get a letter... they get a summons.

So let's dispense with allegorical evidence and consider this strictly by the book. A simple clerical error can ruin your life 100% of the time, according to the law. This has been shown time and again; Kuglin, for example. She has had her life ruined for what the criminal court decided was a stupid and unintentional error.

Ah, I see you don't know the definition of a "clerical error". Cheating on your taxes is not a clerical error. A clerical error would be claiming $9100 in charitable contributions but only made $1900. Then when the IRS would point it out, you would simply correct the error and pay the amount owed. There is no way an error of the type just described would 100% ruin your life. Besides they'd never get a criminal conviction from a clerical error.

"according to the law" - now you've done it. I'm going to have to ask you for the law. This is your chance to practice what you preach and "show me the law". Somehow, I'm confident you'll just squirm away from citing a law that would wreck someone's life 100% because they made a clerical error.

[ShadesOfKnight]

"according to the law" - now you've done it. I'm going to have to ask you for the law. This is your chance to practice what you preach and "show me the law". Somehow, I'm confident you'll just squirm away from citing a law that would wreck someone's life 100% because they made a clerical error.

Very well. According to the law. Using Microsoft Word to search the text of Title 26 (my god, that's a huge document), there is no provision requiring that the IRS send a polite letter...

There are several code bits that allow the IRS to begin enforcement actions, and some that mandate such... but nothing that requires them to send a letter (polite or otherwise) first.

Perhaps I'm searching based on the wrong criteria? Can you suggest a better one? Or will you simply decide that this is "squirming" instead of facing the point I have made?

[wserra]

Perhaps you can cite to me when a "clerical error" "ruined your life". No? Didn't think so.

So let's dispense with allegorical evidence and consider this strictly by the book.

Fine. Let's do that.

A simple clerical error can ruin your life 100% of the time, according to the law.

You said that before. It's no more true this time. Repeating your own pronouncements is your idea of proof "strictly by the book"?

This has been shown time and again; Kuglin, for example. She has had her life ruined for what the criminal court decided was a stupid and unintentional error.

(1) The court made no such decision. The jury decided that the prosecution had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Kuglin consciously disregarded a known duty to pay taxes. That hardly makes it unintentional, and is evidence of nothing other than a failure of the government's proof in a single case.

(2) If you were able to read the transcript which I previously cited to you, you might have been interested to learn that in evidence at the trial were at least twelve different written notices sent to Kuglin about her tax liability before she was charged with anything.

I'll tell ya, the IRS really swooped down out of nowhere and ruined her life. Got any other "strictly by the book" examples?

You have accused other posters here of being assholes. Why is it that you believe that people should put up with your blithering nonsense when you have been directed to the truth and choose to ignore it?

[Agent Observer]

It's rather insightful of your representation of reality when you try to pass off this:

And some folk I know have been arrested for having just over the legal limit of Sudafed in their medicine cabinet.

as the same thing as this:

He had a legally-owned firearm in his car when pulled over for speeding. The folks at our DAs office blew it all out of proportion and tried to hang him on a weapons offense. When that didn't work, the warrant to search his premises for illegal weapons somehow led to his arrest for possession of "controlled substances."

You attempt to lead people to believe that too much Sudafed was the primary charge and cause of the his arrest, when it clearly wasn't. Perhaps if you practiced a bit less intellectual dishonesty with yourself, you would see what the people here are trying to do is help people like you, who insist on sticking their heads in the sand and screaming, at the top of their lungs, that the tax code doesn’t apply to them simply because they say it doesn't.

But then again, you already had your mind made up before you came to this forum, didn't you? (That was a rhetorical question by the way, and requires no answer based on the totality of your posts).

[webhick]

Not everyone gets a polite letter. Several folk, myself included, immediately get a letter making threats of criminal prosecution.

Holy crap?! What kind of clerical error gets threatened with criminal prosecution?

[Duke2Earl]

To this "person" intentionally filing a zero return or intentionally failing to file is a "clerical error."

And they wonder why we laugh at them.

[Quixote]

There are several code bits that allow the IRS to begin enforcement actions, and some that mandate such... but nothing that requires them to send a letter (polite or otherwise) first.

Name one enforcement action the IRS can take, as the result of a clerical error on a return, that does not require notice to the taxpayer at least 30 days beforehand.

On a more realistic note, name one enforcement action that IRS will take, according to the IRM, without first contacting the taxpayer.

[Imalawman]

There are several code bits that allow the IRS to begin enforcement actions, and some that mandate such... but nothing that requires them to send a letter (polite or otherwise) first.

Name one enforcement action the IRS can take, as the result of a clerical error on a return, that does not require notice to the taxpayer at least 30 days beforehand.

On a more realistic note, name one enforcement action that IRS will take, according to the IRM, without first contacting the taxpayer.

That was my response, so..Ditto.

[ShadesOfKnight]

(1) The court made no such decision. The jury decided that the prosecution had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Kuglin consciously disregarded a known duty to pay taxes. That hardly makes it unintentional, and is evidence of nothing other than a failure of the government's proof in a single case.

Firstly, it has been said again and again that the Kuglin case hinged on intent, and thus if that is so, then we have no choice than to conclude that since the jury found in her favor that the intent did not exist. If it was not proven, then it is not true, correct?

Furthermore, Oxford's Dictionary:
Clerical Error - A mistake made in copying or writing out a document.

Mistake - A thing that is incorrect or an error in judgement.

Therefore, a Clerical Error is an error in judgement relating to the filling out of a document.

As we have already established that Kuglin did not consciously disregard a known duty to pay taxes, and as we can conclude that that is an error in judgement, we can infer that her acts (insofar as criminal court is concerned) are a clerical error.

Add to that the civil trial, which according to this forum has reduced her to effectively minimum wage, we can safely infer that her life has been similarly reduced in quality. Presuming that Kuglin is one of the majority of Americans who has a mortgage on her home (or rent payments) that are fairly significant, we could safely presume that she will find herself in a situation where she can no longer make ends meet. For my part, I consider that a ruined life. Perhaps you would have a different conclusion?

I'll tell ya, the IRS really swooped down out of nowhere and ruined her life. Got any other "strictly by the book" examples?

I'm still unsuccessful in finding any statute that requires the letter be sent (polite or otherwise). So, again... they may have sent the letter, but were under no compunction to do so. You, I'm sure, are aware of the adage that says "Ignorance of the law is no defense?"

You have accused other posters here of being assholes. Why is it that you believe that people should put up with your blithering nonsense when you have been directed to the truth and choose to ignore it?

Interesting linkage. Assholes are somehow able to be likened to efforts to correct ignorance. I'll have to remember that. To answer your question, it's obvious. Ignorance is no excuse; but an effort to correct ignorance represents a good faith exercise to get to the bottom of a contradiction that has no clear resolution. When compared to declarations of "blithering nonsense," or unfounded claims about age or opinion, I'm not seeing the association that seems so very clear to you.

[ShadesOfKnight]

You attempt to lead people to believe that too much Sudafed was the primary charge and cause of the his arrest, when it clearly wasn't.

No, it's just the one that they managed to make stick, and if you'd been following along, you'd see that the point is that the law is applied in something of a fast-and-loose fashion by its enforcers and is not as cut and dried as I would like.

Perhaps if you practiced a bit less intellectual dishonesty with yourself, you would see what the people here are trying to do is help people like you, who insist on sticking their heads in the sand and screaming, at the top of their lungs, that the tax code doesn’t apply to them simply because they say it doesn't.

When, exactly, did I say that? Or are you putting words in my mouth? You were quite nimble in quoting me earlier... how about finding where I said that the tax code does not apply to me?

Or perhaps your entire post was merely venting your frustration at my ignorance... That would be reasonable; there is little that is quite as frustrating as someone who is fighting their way out of ignorance but refuses to take things on faith (another form of ignorance, truth be told).

[Demosthenes]

Firstly, it has been said again and again that the Kuglin case hinged on intent, and thus if that is so, then we have no choice than to conclude that since the jury found in her favor that the intent did not exist. If it was not proven, then it is not true, correct?

It only means that the prosecutors failed to prove her intent was to evase taxes beyond a reasonable doubt.

[ShadesOfKnight]

Name one enforcement action the IRS can take, as the result of a clerical error on a return, that does not require notice to the taxpayer at least 30 days beforehand.

On a more realistic note, name one enforcement action that IRS will take, according to the IRM, without first contacting the taxpayer.

Using notice instead of letter, I have now found something in the code.. quite interesting, actually.

It seems that the IRS is required to provide notice. However, providing notice is affirmed simply by an affidavit that states that the notice was mailed. In other words, there is no onus that the notice actually be recieved, or in fact even sent... only that someone say that it was. This is interesting because of the presumption of fact... I would have thought that some form of proof would be required.

I must say however, that since I have now gotten the proper search criteria (notice instead of letter) I am finding much more results in my examination of the code. Thank you, Quixote, for providing that. It appears that my presumption was in fact based on improper search criteria. I withdraw the original statement.

[ShadesOfKnight]

Firstly, it has been said again and again that the Kuglin case hinged on intent, and thus if that is so, then we have no choice than to conclude that since the jury found in her favor that the intent did not exist. If it was not proven, then it is not true, correct?

It only means that the prosecutors failed to prove her intent was to evase taxes beyond a reasonable doubt.

And if something is not proven, what must we conclude?

Someone brought forth Occam's Razor earlier... Surely I am not off base in throwing forth this other tenet of logic?

[Demosthenes]

Firstly, it has been said again and again that the Kuglin case hinged on intent, and thus if that is so, then we have no choice than to conclude that since the jury found in her favor that the intent did not exist. If it was not proven, then it is not true, correct?

It only means that the prosecutors failed to prove her intent was to evase taxes beyond a reasonable doubt.

And if something is not proven, what must we conclude?

Someone brought forth Occam's Razor earlier... Surely I am not off base in throwing forth this other tenet of logic?

If something isn't proven, then it wasn't proven. You can't draw any conclusions from it.

[LPC]

And that will be the last word.