IRS levy against CtCer Kensei for $5,000 friv. penalty

A collection of old posts from all forums. No new threads or new posts in old threads allowed. For archive use only.
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

IRS levy against CtCer Kensei for $5,000 friv. penalty

Post by Famspear »

On 25 Feb. 2009, user "kensei" at losthorizons wrote:
Now we are the target of the 'levy at work' in this thread...

The other day my wife got a letter 668-W in the mail, they are attempting to 'levy' by notice for the $5000 civil penalty only. This was put on hold, via phone, twice, but now they must have changed their mind. I have been feverishly printing and modding documents and files I previously organized into a 'levy and distraint' folder, and plan to discuss with payroll tomorrow.

We appreciate your prayers, ideas, and encouragement as we seek to inform the payer that the IRS is trying to go 'around the law' to have the payer STEAL OUR PROPERTY on their behalf, thus shouldering all the liability while the IRS laughs all the way to the bank. If payroll resists, I am prepared to talk to the president [of the employer-company] himself, reasserting the mistake of the penalty and the improper attempt to 'levy' by notice. I am including a specific demand for a signed court order authorizing said 'notice' - but I strongly believe it does not exist!
http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... c&start=45

(bolding added).

I'm sure you're right about the non-existence of the court order, Kensei. The IRS doesn't need a court order to levy on you, and the IRS therefore usually does not request one.

Now, Kensei writes:
Whew. Thank you Lord. I was on the phone for quite some time recently... HR, but even the director said they weren't able to do anything. The payroll department is offsite, in another city! Contacted the assistant who sent wife's letter, started reviewing our situation, the errors, penalty is mistake, working with examinations, etc. Also mentioned I had some clarifying documents related to the 'notice of levy' and could make an appointment to review them, and have prepared a form they could submit for us, with affidavit for IRS officer, to PROVE that a valid levy exists.

She balked, didn't know what to make of it, said the only one who can release a levy is the IRS, we can't do anything or they will fine us, I reclarified some about the limited scope, turn over the page and see how 6331(a) is missing... She said we don't think we can send anything, if the IRS doesn't release it we just have to give them the money.

Let me speak to the manager. She transferred me.

This man seemed understanding as I was reviewing our situation, but he REFUSED to let me come in and make an appointment (the building is locked and nobody is admitted without a prior appointment, for security?) I reviewed the information in the USC, CFR for Title 26 and 27, TFM, etc., about how there is a limited scope to the 'levy authority.' He said he's seen them from time to time over the past 15 or more years, but when I asked him to look up 6331(a) on the internet, he couldn't find anything. Good grief. And he's the one that's supposed to 'know' the law?? I asked several times for a meeting, I can discuss everything better in person... but he refused. I said 'notice' of levy not actual levy, I just want to request PROOF that it is supported by a court order.

He said he looked at the levy document, it looks like it's official, he has never asked for a court order copy before... ugh. I compiled an e-mail message for him with attachments, including the scans by the Congressional Reps about the limited nature of the 6331 'levy' authority, other pastes and citations, etc., and he agreed to check it out.

How are you supposed to make progress when you aren't even allowed to meet with the payroll department!?! I was mad. We were planning to go talk to the president/CEO to do something for us, to review, etc., but sat down, prayed again and called the Collections number on the notice of levy.

Okay. Reviewed our situation with the woman in Collections [at the Internal Revenue Service]. Various account errors, penalty applied in error, keep asking for proof, verification or ANYTHING and everyone is blowing us off! We keep trying to contact Mrs. Wright [the IRS employee whose name reportedly appears on various notices] yet she has NEVER been at her phone and has never called us back. Was calling on behalf of wife, was reviewing, she asked about married separate, I said, no, married joint is what we filed, we have copies, transcripts, etc. She looked some more, and said 'you're right' - the screen here has 'married joint' - but why does this other part have separate? I asked again, she said, yes, definitely married joint is what we have for you, how could the others have not seen it? Additionally - ALL of the account info is listed on my Soc. number - the wife only has the 'frivolous penalty' on her profile/number, that's it.

Discussed the problem of having ONE return yet with TWO friv. pen's on it, she said, yes, there is no assessment for her either, that is weird... (believe me, we hear 'that is strange', 'that is weird' pretty often with the mistakes in the account...)
It's not weird at all of course. The law imposes the penalty "per person," not "per return."
To sum up, she said yes, she will release the levy on wife and fax the release to the payroll. I asked about getting the info fixed, and she echoed what others have said:

"The examinations person is the one who can fix the errors. Only the person who put the penalty/penalties on there can take them off."

I further reviewed with her that recently we got a letter claiming we 'never filed a return' - despite having records to the contrary, and if we never filed, how could such a penalty for a frivolous return exist? She agreed that wow, there are a lot of odd things here... but yes, she will fax the levy release.
Kensei, maybe, just maybe, the putative "return" you filed did not constitute a legally valid "return" under the law. Did you think about that? However, the frivolous penalty applies regardless of whether the putative "return" is considered a legally valid return or not. The penalty applies to the filing of what PURPORTS to be a return, regardless of whether what is "filed" constitutes a legally valid tax return or not.
Of note, not sure if others are hearing this too - several IRS folks have noticed, 'wow, you only have xxxx of income, but wow, there are a lot of withholdings. Did you have a math error? How did you live on so little income? Why did you have most of your salary withheld?' ... etc.

Actually, one rep asked what was filed with the return, the withholdings are a lot, mentioned 1040 with forms 4852, she said, 'what is that?' I said a form for when you receive an incorrect W-2, or none at all. I mentioned that nonreportable payments were mistakenly reported on the W-2, so we used form 4852 to rebut and correct them. She asked if we were able to get a corrected W-2, I said no, the company did not offer to do that. There is a section in the IRM about 'bad payer data' that describes this.' She said, 'oh, okay' and continued along.

After checking later in the day, the release had not been faxed, so called back - this time the whole deal took over an hour... but learned some more, the woman mentioned sometimes it can take up to 24 - 48 hrs., sometimes, to get the levy release faxed. This second woman reviewed the data, and she is the one who put my 'levy' proceeding on hold as the letter I sent seems to have had no effect. [gdude - call them soon, okay? Have them place a hold on your notice too.] She also was mystified about how the joint returns were 'split' - she also said that the 2004 1040x also looked to be 'split' in two. We recently received CP15 x 2 regarding that year. I reviewed how it DEFINITELY is a joint return, just like the original, we have copies and scans that clearly show that.

This woman also put any 'levy' proceedings on hold for me for approx. 60 days, to give examinations time to fix the problems, and also potentially to contact Taxpayer Advocate to help get things worked out. Whew. Thank you all for your encouragment and prayers, yes, this has been a sickening few days, to say the least.
A 60 day delay! Victory!!!!
To know what is true, and correct, but to have to 'convince' the ignorant of the truth - or even to get someone to READ and realize what is really going on is frustrating! JUST READ and learn what the law actually says, rather than just 'we just have to do it...' And this is such a person who has no problem HANDING OVER your property. Ugh.

So, in concluding this rather large posting, my wife and I are seeking to figure out the next step. As we have been learning through calls and correspondence, for 2007 the problem is Mrs. Wright. She put the crap on the account, and has 'split' the info - and apparently she is the ONLY one who can fix the problems that she made.

The problem is that she cannot be contacted, never answers her phone or returns calls, and apparently she doesn't really care what we think or doesn't feel like submitting any proof or documents as requested.

SO - the question is - how can we 'pressure' her, or go over her head, or alert which persons, or even SUE her, to get this crap fixed? The filing was in Feb. 2008, we have passed a year, and with the long delays, then the ACS levy computers seem to kick in. We need action to FORCE her, somehow, legally and properly, of course, to honor the return and fix the account errors, and issue the refund claim.

One should not have to sue to simply get their own property returned, nor jump through this ridiculous maze of hoops, delays, false claims, etc.
Well, kensei, you may have won a delay, but I suspect that your "jumping" days are not over yet.....
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
The Operative
Fourth Shogun of Quatloosia
Posts: 885
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 3:04 pm
Location: Here, I used to be there, but I moved.

Re: IRS levy against CtCer Kensei for $5,000 friv. penalty

Post by The Operative »

[sarcasm] It is amazing that erudite legal scholar Pete Hendrickson missed all those court cases stating the IRS doesn't need a court order to levy a person's income or property.
[/sarcasm]
Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak.
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: IRS levy against CtCer Kensei for $5,000 friv. penalty

Post by Famspear »

CaptainKickback wrote:I know some of you scan LostHorizons regularly for these "nuggets." But, I cannot bring myself to read ANYTHING over there for more than a minute because of the amazing, toxic, levels of stupidity, pseudo-knowledge, hubris, mental masturbation, and down-right non-sensical blatherings.
When I go over there, I always wear a special sealed body suit and protective helmet.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Prof
El Pontificator de Porceline Precepts
Posts: 1209
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 9:27 pm
Location: East of the Pecos

Re: IRS levy against CtCer Kensei for $5,000 friv. penalty

Post by Prof »

Famspear wrote:
CaptainKickback wrote:I know some of you scan LostHorizons regularly for these "nuggets." But, I cannot bring myself to read ANYTHING over there for more than a minute because of the amazing, toxic, levels of stupidity, pseudo-knowledge, hubris, mental masturbation, and down-right non-sensical blatherings.
When I go over there, I always wear a special sealed body suit and protective helmet.
Rubber gloves.
"My Health is Better in November."
User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 7559
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:48 pm
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: IRS levy against CtCer Kensei for $5,000 friv. penalty

Post by The Observer »

Kensei's tale shows the problems in the IRS where having too many hands involved leads to erroneous explanations and understandings of what exactly is going on. It doesn't help that the TPs can see verly clearly that IRS left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing; this only reinforces in the TP's mind that he is right and that something underhanded and wrong is going on at the IRS. For those TPs who have a little more on the ball, it helps foster even more grandiose schemes in throwing monkey wrenches into the collection machinery. If someone as dim as Kensei is able to engineer a 60-day delay of his wage levy, you can only imagine what others have been able to do.

Eventually, though the IRS is going to get to the bottom line with this situation, most likely when the case is issued to a field revenue officer. He or she will not going to be listening to demands for "lawful court orders" and explanations why IRC 6331(a) is missing off the back of the 668-W levy form. The levy will be served, the employer advised that failure to send in the attached funds will result in service of a final demand, followed by a suit filed against the employer for failure to honor a levy (the IRS cannot fine an employer, that has to be awarded by a federal judge). Kensei will shortly find that he has a couple of choices: (A) ignore the levy and miss out on a major portion of his income, (B) file bankruptcy, (C) quit his job, or (D) recognize his stupidity and start complying with the tax laws, meet with the IRS and file correct returns and pay the correct tax.

Note that I don't offer the option that he can continue trying practicing CtC, since it is patently clear that CtC hasn't been working in Kensei' scenario for quite some time.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: IRS levy against CtCer Kensei for $5,000 friv. penalty

Post by Famspear »

Question: Could Kensei's phone calls be construed as criminal acts? Tax evasion? Willfully attempting in any manner to evade or defeat the payment of a "tax" (in this case, the "tax" being a section 6702 penalty)?

And, along this line, in this situation, what exactly is "willful"? We know that under the federal tax statutes, a person acts "willfully" if his conduct involves the voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. But, has Kensei violated any legal duty here with respect to the section 6702 penalty itself? Does he have a legal duty NOT to try to stop a levy on his wages in satisfaction of a section 6702 penalty that he probably does owe? If even if he does have such a duty, I wonder whether Kensei is "aware" that he has such a duty.

Let's assume arguendo that Kensei actually believes that the courts' interpretations of the tax laws are "wrong" and that Pete Hendrickson's interpretations are "correct." We know that this kind of actual belief, under cases like Cheek and Willie, might properly be construed by a jury NOT to be the kind of belief that negates willfulness under the Cheek doctrine. It's one thing to say that Kensei is aware of a legal duty to pay federal income tax on private-sector compensation not involving an activity in connection with a federal privilege. Perhaps it is another thing to say that he has a legal duty not to try to stop a levy in connection with a section 6702 penalty, and that he is aware of that duty.

I don't know the answers to my questions; I just thought I'd stir it up a little......
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Dr. Caligari
J.D., Miskatonic University School of Crickets
Posts: 1812
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: IRS levy against CtCer Kensei for $5,000 friv. penalty

Post by Dr. Caligari »

There have been tax evasion cases (evasion of payment) or other criminal cases (under the "corrupt interference" section) brought against people who interfered with levies, but they all involved either force (physically interfering with a Revenue Officer trying to seize a car), threats to the ROs, or fraud (moving assets into the names of nominees). Merely exercising the right to object to the Service or to the employer would, in my opinion, be constitutionally -protected, not criminal.
Dr. Caligari
(Du musst Caligari werden!)
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: IRS levy against CtCer Kensei for $5,000 friv. penalty

Post by Famspear »

Dr. Caligari wrote:There have been tax evasion cases (evasion of payment) or other criminal cases (under the "corrupt interference" section) brought against people who interfered with levies, but they all involved either force (physically interfering with a Revenue Officer trying to seize a car), threats to the ROs, or fraud (moving assets into the names of nominees). Merely exercising the right to object to the Service or to the employer would, in my opinion, be constitutionally -protected, not criminal.
Hey, Dr. C, It's hard enough having to deal with Weston ("weaksauce") White and his Tyrannical Response Team. Now, you just may have foiled my plans to promote the tyranny of the New World Order -- with this talk about constitutionally protected rights.

:shock:
:cry:
:twisted:
8)
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Judge Roy Bean
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Posts: 3704
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 6:04 pm
Location: West of the Pecos

Re: IRS levy against CtCer Kensei for $5,000 friv. penalty

Post by Judge Roy Bean »

What he's trying to pull sounds about right for someone who simply refuses to accept reality.

But his spouse's employer shouldn't even attempt to discuss this with him - the proper response for the HR manager would be to advise the interfering spouse to take the issue up with the IRS. "Round here, (just for fun) Kensei would be reported to the bar. (UPL for trying to advise the employer in such matters.) :twisted:
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy.
The Devil Makes Three
User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 5631
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 5:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker

Re: IRS levy against CtCer Kensei for $5,000 friv. penalty

Post by Gregg »

CaptainKickback wrote:I know some of you scan LostHorizons regularly for these "nuggets." But, I cannot bring myself to read ANYTHING over there for more than a minute because of the amazing, toxic, levels of stupidity, pseudo-knowledge, hubris, mental masturbation, and down-right non-sensical blatherings.
Well, I almost agree, but Knesie is ONE OF MY FAVORITES, because he's pretty smart for someone so stupid... (he is some kind of doctor I think, not a dentist, may a chiro or a witch doktor) I have him in the pool for first one to lose his house to the IRS...
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 5631
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 5:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker

Re: IRS levy against CtCer Kensei for $5,000 friv. penalty

Post by Gregg »

On another note, you're right, Observer, Kensie appears to me to be gtting a new low level operator on the line every time and getting another 60 days until Mrs White or whomever can re issue the levy. What looks like has happened to me is

He filed a joint bogus return and got the Civ Pen
They split it into two returns for SFRs
It happened to go to the small business section for processing, which I understand does not at all mean that it has to be a business return,
He cannot comprehend that the Civ Pen is on both of them because signing a bogus return is the frivilous act, and he signed, cha ching, and she signed, cha ching, thanks for shopping Hendricksons!

Oh, and he also doesn't seem to get it that the IRS will acknowledge recieving CtC gibberish, but they won't accept it as a return, so yes, you have a reciept that they got what you sent them, but what you sent them is garbage. And frivilous garbage at that. And that's another thing he uses with the operator when he calls, I can almost hear him, talking as fast as he can to try to keep them from catching up, leading questions, ,,,,you cna see it in what he writes about it. I cannot wait to see this bozo go down, he's almost as annoying as Pete himself....
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: IRS levy against CtCer Kensei for $5,000 friv. penalty

Post by LPC »

Dr. Caligari wrote:There have been tax evasion cases (evasion of payment) or other criminal cases (under the "corrupt interference" section) brought against people who interfered with levies, but they all involved either force (physically interfering with a Revenue Officer trying to seize a car), threats to the ROs, or fraud (moving assets into the names of nominees). Merely exercising the right to object to the Service or to the employer would, in my opinion, be constitutionally -protected, not criminal.
I don't know about constitutionally protected, but I don't believe that what Kensei has done is criminal.

I think that the minimal standard for criminality is found in section 7212(a), which refers to "corruptly or by force or threats of force (including any threatening letter or communication) endeavors to intimidate or impede any officer or employee of the United States acting in an official capacity under this title..." I can't believe that Kensei would be held to a higher standard in dealing with non-government people.

And "corruptly" implies a level of deliberate dishonesty. There is a 5th Circuit pattern jury instruction that defines "corruptly" as "knowingly and dishonestly, with the specific intent to subvert or undermine the integrity" of a proceeding. See Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696 (2005).

So arguing with HR and payroll people shouldn't be criminal unless there are threats or fraud or some other form of corruption. Making stupid arguments shouldn't cut it.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
absdes96
Scalawag
Scalawag
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:55 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: IRS levy against CtCer Kensei for $5,000 friv. penalty

Post by absdes96 »

Famspear wrote:Question: Could Kensei's phone calls be construed as criminal acts? Tax evasion? Willfully attempting in any manner to evade or defeat the payment of a "tax" (in this case, the "tax" being a section 6702 penalty)?

And, along this line, in this situation, what exactly is "willful"? We know that under the federal tax statutes, a person acts "willfully" if his conduct involves the voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. But, has Kensei violated any legal duty here with respect to the section 6702 penalty itself? Does he have a legal duty NOT to try to stop a levy on his wages in satisfaction of a section 6702 penalty that he probably does owe? If even if he does have such a duty, I wonder whether Kensei is "aware" that he has such a duty.

Let's assume arguendo that Kensei actually believes that the courts' interpretations of the tax laws are "wrong" and that Pete Hendrickson's interpretations are "correct." We know that this kind of actual belief, under cases like Cheek and Willie, might properly be construed by a jury NOT to be the kind of belief that negates willfulness under the Cheek doctrine. It's one thing to say that Kensei is aware of a legal duty to pay federal income tax on private-sector compensation not involving an activity in connection with a federal privilege. Perhaps it is another thing to say that he has a legal duty not to try to stop a levy in connection with a section 6702 penalty, and that he is aware of that duty.

I don't know the answers to my questions; I just thought I'd stir it up a little......
Qualifier: I am not trained in law and I know little about precedent in tax case law matters.

But...

If the IRS actually complies with his demands via letters and phone calls (stops the levy), would not that further muddy the waters on his criminal liability.

The defendant (layperson) says, " I believed this to be the accurate interpretation of law. This IRS complied with my requests. What would a reasonable person conclude? That the IRS assisted me in breaking the law? "

I guess it is just a matter to time when the IRS corrects its administration and informs the person that he/she is liable and owes?
The mongoose of a disciplined mind and will is more than a match for the cobra of desire and emotion. - Professor Dallas Willard, USC
Doktor Avalanche
Asst Secretary, the Dept of Jesters
Posts: 1767
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Yuba City, CA

Re: IRS levy against CtCer Kensei for $5,000 friv. penalty

Post by Doktor Avalanche »

Prof wrote:
Famspear wrote:
CaptainKickback wrote:I know some of you scan LostHorizons regularly for these "nuggets." But, I cannot bring myself to read ANYTHING over there for more than a minute because of the amazing, toxic, levels of stupidity, pseudo-knowledge, hubris, mental masturbation, and down-right non-sensical blatherings.
When I go over there, I always wear a special sealed body suit and protective helmet.
Rubber gloves.
I usually lather myself with a liberal dose of spermacide, pesticide, suicide and Drano.
The laissez-faire argument relies on the same tacit appeal to perfection as does communism. - George Soros