Weston White banned at losthorizons; he responds to PEH

[Demosthenes]

More notably is that the IRS only has authority to canvass areas, while within a designated customs station, port, and similarly like areas, or while in the presence of a customs officer/agent whom is in the course of performing their prescribed lawful duties.

And TPs wonder why we laugh at them.

[jcolvin2]

Weston, you'll find that most (if not all) hard-core tax deniers have some pivotal event in their past (financial failure, business collapse, medical emergency) that wiped them out (scam victim) and triggered their need (desperation) to dig their way out financially. Once they jump into the tax-denier fray, they get a significant ego boost from the feeling that they are doing something big and important. And once that emotional aspect kicks in, the descent into cult-like fanaticism is rapid and very very thorough.

"Magical words" takes on new and secret significance (just look at any tax denier posting and you'll see that it is riddled with everyday words wrapped in quotation marks.) Outsiders are shunned as polar opposites (liberty haters, feds, etc.) and questions / dissent are immediately shut down (banning) rather than answered.

Sounds like the subject-matter of a book!

Seriously, maybe the readers would want to illustrate the theory with Pete Hendrickson.

What pivotal event turned a middle-income manager into a celebrity tax denier?

Perhaps because of my personal biases (an undergraduate degree in anthropology), have always thought that aspects of the TP movement(s) resembled the millennarian "cargo cults" of Melanesia, except instead of believing that some magical change will happen, bringing Western goods, the TPs think they will bring about "tax freedom" or the collapse of the IRS.

[The Observer]

Here are a few fun facts about the IRS:

The notable distinction between agents and offices is that agents only get to "enforce" tax law outside of Subtitle E while in the course of investigating violations taking place in consideration of Subtitle E; while officers do not get to "enforce" laws, except under a few specific circumstances and by warrants issued by the courts.

More notably is that the IRS only has authority to canvass areas, while within a designated customs station, port, and similarly like areas, or while in the presence of a customs officer/agent whom is in the course of performing their prescribed lawful duties.

This quote is a perfect example of the term "completely wrong."

The notable distinction between revenue agents and revenue officers is that agents are responsible for enforcing those sections of the IRC that relate to the assessment of tax and auditing of returns, while revenue officers are responsible for the enforcement of the IRC sections relating to the collection of tax and delinquent returns. Even this distinction is simplistic since revenue officers are allowed to assess tax and civil penalties in limited and specific circumstances. Revenue officers need no warrants from a court to carry out the collection of tax except for those times when they need to enter an area to seize the taxpayer's assets. If this area would be seen to be a private area protected by the 4th amendment, the revenue officer must seek permission from the federal courts before entering.

As for the "fun fact" regarding canvassing, it is neither fun or factual. It would be more accurate to describe it as "funny" and "farcical."

[Nikki]

The notable distinction between agents and offices is that agents only get to "enforce" tax law outside of Subtitle E while in the course of investigating violations taking place in consideration of Subtitle E; while officers do not get to "enforce" laws, except under a few specific circumstances and by warrants issued by the courts.

More notably is that the IRS only has authority to canvass areas, while within a designated customs station, port, and similarly like areas, or while in the presence of a customs officer/agent whom is in the course of performing their prescribed lawful duties.

Where do you get this stuff?

Do you EVER try to confirm that any of it is valid or are you still in the "if I read it on the Internet, it's got to be true" mode?

[Famspear]

The notable distinction between agents and offices is that agents only get to "enforce" tax law outside of Subtitle E while in the course of investigating violations taking place in consideration of Subtitle E; while officers do not get to "enforce" laws, except under a few specific circumstances and by warrants issued by the courts.

More notably is that the IRS only has authority to canvass areas, while within a designated customs station, port, and similarly like areas, or while in the presence of a customs officer/agent whom is in the course of performing their prescribed lawful duties.

Where do you get this stuff?

Do you EVER try to confirm that any of it is valid or are you still in the "if I read it on the Internet, it's got to be true" mode?

Weston got this from the usual suspects. I believe this is a variation on arguments about section 7608 - a misinterpretation of the distinction between subsection (a) of section 7608 (generally dealing with the "criminal, seizure, or forfeiture provisions of subtitle E or of any other law of the United States pertaining to the commodities subject to tax under such subtitle for the enforcement of which the Secretary [of the Treasury or his delegate] is responsible") and subsection (b) (dealing with any "criminal investigator of the Intelligence Division of the Internal Revenue Service whom the Secretary [of the Treasury or his delegate] charges with the duty of enforcing any of the criminal provisions of the internal revenue laws, any other criminal provisions of law relating to internal revenue for the enforcement of which the Secretary [of the Treasury or his delegate] is responsible, or any other law for which the Secretary [of the Treasury or his delegate] has delegated investigatory authority to the Internal Revenue Service").

After this statute was enacted, the "Intelligence Division" of the IRS later came to be known as the "Criminal Investigation Division" (CID), and still later simply as "Criminal Investigation (CI)". The Division is still known as "CID" or "CI." Congress has never amended section 7608 to reflect the current internal terminology of the IRS.

Interestingly, the authority addressed under section 7608 seems to apply mainly to criminal matters -- which means you're talking mainly about IRS Special Agents.

The authority of IRS Revenue Agents (examinations) and IRS Revenue Officers (collections and delinquent returns) would seem to flow mainly from places like sections 7801 and 7803, and from specific delegation orders like Delegation Order 182 (relating to, inter alia, the authority of certain Revenue Agents and Revenue Officers to "prepare or execute returns required by any internal revenue law or regulation when the person required to file such return fails to do so").

I recall seeing delusional ranting by tax deniers somewhere to the effect that ONLY "revenue agents" were authorized to execute 6020(b) returns on INCOME taxes -- or maybe it was ONLY "revenue officers" who were supposedly so authorized -- it's hard to keep track of all the variations on these goofy delusions. Delegation Order 182 clearly grants the authority to both revenue officers and revenue agents (rank or grade of GS-9 or above) with respect to ANY INTERNAL REVENUE LAW or regulation -- which of course includes the laws relating to INCOME tax.

[Weston White]

Here are a few fun facts about the IRS:

I don't know if you care or not, but you have no credibility whatsoever, and I don't consider anything you state to be a "fact" unless you provide a citation to a statute, regulation, court decision, or other authority that would allow me to verify what you say.

Just so that you now know, I do care about my credibilty, though at this point, I could really care less about what you consider.

Though I would go far as to say that if anybody should already be familiar with those statutes, it would be you, Mr. FAQ. Though I am not at all shocked that you do not discuss nor mention those provisions.

[Weston White]

The notable distinction between agents and offices is that agents only get to "enforce" tax law outside of Subtitle E while in the course of investigating violations taking place in consideration of Subtitle E; while officers do not get to "enforce" laws, except under a few specific circumstances and by warrants issued by the courts.

More notably is that the IRS only has authority to canvass areas, while within a designated customs station, port, and similarly like areas, or while in the presence of a customs officer/agent whom is in the course of performing their prescribed lawful duties.

Where do you get this stuff?

Do you EVER try to confirm that any of it is valid or are you still in the "if I read it on the Internet, it's got to be true" mode?

Weston got this from the usual suspects. I believe this is a variation on arguments about section 7608 - a misinterpretation of the distinction between subsection (a) of section 7608 (generally dealing with the "criminal, seizure, or forfeiture provisions of subtitle E or of any other law of the United States pertaining to the commodities subject to tax under such subtitle for the enforcement of which the Secretary [of the Treasury or his delegate] is responsible") and subsection (b) (dealing with any "criminal investigator of the Intelligence Division of the Internal Revenue Service whom the Secretary [of the Treasury or his delegate] charges with the duty of enforcing any of the criminal provisions of the internal revenue laws, any other criminal provisions of law relating to internal revenue for the enforcement of which the Secretary [of the Treasury or his delegate] is responsible, or any other law for which the Secretary [of the Treasury or his delegate] has delegated investigatory authority to the Internal Revenue Service").

After this statute was enacted, the "Intelligence Division" of the IRS later came to be known as the "Criminal Investigation Division" (CID), and still later simply as "Criminal Investigation (CI)". The Division is still known as "CID" or "CI." Congress has never amended section 7608 to reflect the current internal terminology of the IRS.

Interestingly, the authority addressed under section 7608 seems to apply mainly to criminal matters -- which means you're talking mainly about IRS Special Agents.

The authority of IRS Revenue Agents (examinations) and IRS Revenue Officers (collections and delinquent returns) would seem to flow mainly from places like sections 7801 and 7803, and from specific delegation orders like Delegation Order 182 (relating to, inter alia, the authority of certain Revenue Agents and Revenue Officers to "prepare or execute returns required by any internal revenue law or regulation when the person required to file such return fails to do so").

I recall seeing delusional ranting by tax deniers somewhere to the effect that ONLY "revenue agents" were authorized to execute 6020(b) returns on INCOME taxes -- or maybe it was ONLY "revenue officers" who were supposedly so authorized -- it's hard to keep track of all the variations on these goofy delusions. Delegation Order 182 clearly grants the authority to both revenue officers and revenue agents (rank or grade of GS-9 or above) with respect to ANY INTERNAL REVENUE LAW or regulation -- which of course includes the laws relating to INCOME tax.

It can be either, and includes BATFE officers/agents, so long as they are all assigned to CID. IIRC.

[Dezcad]

Here are a few fun facts about the IRS:

I don't know if you care or not, but you have no credibility whatsoever, and I don't consider anything you state to be a "fact" unless you provide a citation to a statute, regulation, court decision, or other authority that would allow me to verify what you say.

Just so that you now know, I do care about my credibilty, though at this point, I could really care less about what you consider.

So what's your cite for the "fun facts" you mentioned.

And I see you still don't know the proper use of "who" or "whom".

...or while in the presence of a customs officer/agent whom is in the course of performing their prescribed lawful duties.

[LPC]

Just so that you now know, I do care about my credibilty, though at this point, I could really care less about what you consider.

The proper expression is "couldn't care less." If you could care less, then you do care some.

[Weston White]

Just so that you now know, I do care about my credibilty, though at this point, I could really care less about what you consider.

The proper expression is "couldn't care less." If you could care less, then you do care some.

Naw, either way the same conveyance is implied... which is that I do not simply care, period. Outside of the degrees of caring really do not matter as the point has been made... which in case you missed it before was that I do not care.

[Weston White]

So what's your cite for the "fun facts" you mentioned.

And I see you still don't know the proper use of "who" or "whom".

Actually, no that is not what you are seeing at all, you are seeing only what you yourself want to see.

[.]

We had a thead or two a few years ago about TP malapropisms and their non-stop, egregious and atrocious syntax, grammar and usage errors (never mind incessant, non-typo spelling errors,) and the general inability of TPs to express themselves clearly in English, supposedly their native language.

All of this inexactitude and imprecision probably flows from the same lack of perspicacity that apparently prevents them from understanding and comprehending simple English. Not to mention the fact that their silly legal "arguments" are less than worthless, that is, they often incur significant sanctions when TPs are stupid enough to invoke them in a court of law.

In a matter of a few days, Weston has coughed up at least 50 good examples of this syndrome. He fits the inexact/imprecise-TP mold perfectly.

Good luck with CID, Weston, CID being the unpleasant encounter you're probably headed for unless you somehow miraculously manage to reconnect with reality.

[Weston White]

We had a thead or two a few years ago about TP malapropisms and their non-stop, egregious and atrocious syntax, grammar and usage errors (never mind incessant, non-typo spelling errors,) and the general inability of TPs to express themselves clearly in English, supposedly their native language.

All of this inexactitude and imprecision probably flows from the same lack of perspicacity that apparently prevents them from understanding and comprehending simple English. Not to mention the fact that their silly legal "arguments" are less than worthless, that is, they often incur significant sanctions when TPs are stupid enough to invoke them in a court of law.

In a matter of a few days, Weston has coughed up at least 50 good examples of this syndrome. He fits the inexact/imprecise-TP mold perfectly.

Good luck with CID, Weston, CID being the unpleasant encounter you're probably headed for unless you somehow miraculously manage to reconnect with reality.

Wow, 50 that is all? That is pretty good, if I do say so myself. 121 posts, with a 30 post a day average. Hell that is damn good, damn good!

And why thank you, gracias.

[Demosthenes]

Just so that you now know, I do care about my credibilty

It's pretty obvious you don't, Weston, or you would stop relying on information you picked up from scam gurus and start thinking for yourself. If you really want to leave the cult, you're going to have to start fresh and re-examine *all* of the stuff you learned from the cult with a fresh eye.

[Judge Roy Bean]

....
All of this inexactitude and imprecision probably flows from the same lack of perspicacity that apparently prevents them from understanding and comprehending simple English. Not to mention the fact that their silly legal "arguments" are less than worthless, that is, they often incur significant sanctions when TPs are stupid enough to invoke them in a court of law.....

Nearly 50% of the Americans surveyed cannot read well enough to find a single piece of information in a short publication, nor can they make low level inferences based on what they read

The National Adult Literacy Survey, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992

Need I say more? Some years ago instructional designers realized their audiences in large corporations had an average reading and comprehension level of roughly the 5th grade.

It's no wonder so many people can be led into the weeds by people like Hendrickson.