I see Dan has answered 'LOBO' before I had an opportunity to complete my newest
PRA rant. With apologies to the sensibilities of the readers, I submit the following "gibberish."
LOBO wrote:Since nobody else pointed it out here's a previous discussion...
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=458
The case was dismissed because the prosecution screwed up the math and couldn't amend the indictment.
He has been re-indicted.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3939
And, just to keep things within the realm of accuracy:
It was the indictment of
Robert Lawrence that was dismissed, not Lindsey Springer.
And, Springer has only
now been indicted,
not re-indicted.
Bob Schulz wrote an
article on the dismissal in which Lawrence and Springer indicated, it was their opinion, the case was dismissed due to the Paperwork Reduction Act argument.
As 'LOBO' suggests, "Shortly before trial, the government discovered an error in computing the tax amount due," but critics suggest that was no reason to dismiss
with prejudice.
By carefully reviewing the timeline of events, and the last minute submission of evidence by Attorney Stilley, proponents of the PRA argument maintain the indictment was dismissed due to the government not being ready to argue the Paperwork Reduction Act in court.
Be that as it may, a math error remains no reason to dismiss
with prejudice, in my opinion.
As an aside, I noticed in the
NY Times article, pg. 3:
The truly persnickety contend that the 1040 form doesn’t display a valid control number from the Office of Management and Budget, as addressed in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and thus the income tax is invalid.
Factually, that's error. Proponents of the Paperwork Reduction Act do not use the argument to suggest the income tax is invalid, or even that filing a Form 1040 is not required. The Paperwork Reduction Act does not extend to the tax itself but the imposition of penalties.
I will admit that
some proponents have attempted to extend the argument to the tax.
The protection raised by the PRA lies at
44 U.S.C. § 3512 and the concept of being valid.
Government agents, attorneys and apologists fail to note the differences in language and requirements between the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 and the Act of 1995.
Specifically, the requirements were expanded from 44 U.S.C. § 3504(c)(3) (1980):
(c) The information collection request clearance and other paperwork control functions of the Director shall include—
(3) ensuring that all information collection requests—
(A) are inventoried, display a control number and, when appropriate, an expiration date;
(B) indicate the request is in accordance with the clearance requirements of section 3507; and
(C) contain a statement to inform the person receiving the request why the information is being collection, how it is to be used, and whether responses to the request are voluntary, required to obtain a benefit, or mandatory;
The IRS has
never complied with 44 U.S.C. § 3504(c)(3)(B) (1980).
No statement indicating the information collection request known as Form 1040 is in compliance with the clearance requirements of section 3507 has
ever appeared anywhere, on the form, in the instructions or even on a website controlled by the IRS or OMB.
To,
44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(1)(B) (1995):
(c) With respect to the collection of information and the control of paperwork, each agency shall—
(1) establish a process within the office headed by the Chief Information Officer designated under subsection (a), that is sufficiently independent of program responsibility to evaluate fairly whether proposed collections of information should be approved under this subchapter, to—
(B) ensure that each information collection—
(i) is inventoried, displays a control number and, if appropriate, an expiration date;
(ii) indicates the collection is in accordance with the clearance requirements of section 3507; and
(iii) informs the person receiving the collection of information of—
(I) the reasons the information is being collected;
(II) the way such information is to be used;
(III) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the burden of the collection;
(IV) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain a benefit, or mandatory; and
(V) the fact that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number;
Again, the IRS has
never complied with 44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(1)(B)(ii) (1995).
And, notice the addition of several
other requirements, specific to "each" information collection, which our earlier discussion indicated were "interpreted" by the Director of OMB in
regulatory commands promulgated at
5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3), (c)(1) and
1320.9(g).
The IRS certifies its compliance on
Form OMB 83-I, Sec. 19 but never truly complies.
And, the protection at 44 U.S.C. § 3512 (1980) was expanded from:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to maintain or provide information to any agency if the information collection request involved was made after December 31, 1981, and does not display a current control number assigned by the Director, or fails to state that such request is not subject to this chapter.
To,
44 U.S.C. § 3512 (1995):
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that is subject to this subchapter if—
(1) the collection of information does not display a valid control number assigned by the Director in accordance with this subchapter; or
(2) the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that such person is not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a valid control number.
(b) The protection provided by this section may be raised in the form of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency administrative process or judicial action applicable thereto.
Notice the difference between, "failing to maintain or provide information" and "failing to comply," and the difference between, "current control number" and "valid control number."
Notice also the words, "Notwithstanding any other provision of law," which the D.C. Circuit in
Saco River Cellular, Inc. v. FCC, found at 30, "supercede[s] all other laws."
Perhaps, that's why the "interpretation" of Paperwork Reduction Act requirements by the FCC is different than the "interpretation" by Treasury, as seen previously in
Form 1068A.
Government agents, attorneys and apologists want to suggest the mandatory disclosures are satisfied "by making these disclosures in the instruction booklet associated with Form 1040," which indeed is the conclusion of
Lewis v. Commissioner, 10th Cir. at 10.
However, no statement is ever made that the collection is in accordance with the clearance requirements at section 3507, or that OMB # 1545-0074 is valid, pursuant to section 3512.
Remember the words, "it" and "each," in relation to the information collection request.
The importance of the
Lewis decision lies in the fact that Form 1040 satisfies PRA requirements
only by making the disclosures in an instruction book, leaving the conclusion, that Form 1040
without the instructions does
not satisfy PRA requirements.
Government agents, attorneys and apologists want to rely upon whether Form 1040 displays a "currently approved" OMB control number and fail to distinguish the differences between the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 and the Act of 1995, and the concept of being "valid."
Thus endeth my Saturday midday PRA rant, and thus endeth my perusal of this forum.
