"Weston Blathers to Gottago"

[Weston White]

Note, IRS employees are required to follow the IRM, period. End of discussion… if they do not follow their procedures, than people die!

WW was SO close, except that he missed the fact that the IRM section he cited (besides being 10 years out of date) applies to "Basic Examiner Responsibilities for Examination of Returns" and has absolutely nothing to do with computer-generated notices.


Examination "correspondence" as opposed to Collection Notices managed by the Automated Collection System (ACS). There's a difference between "correspondence" and "notice."

It really does not matter what the date is, that is just so not relevant, being that is the most current update dealing with this specific issue. As well you entirely miss the point, the process begins with correspondence and then makes its way towards varying letters and notices. As well concerning this issue there are many other related requirements implemented throughout both the IRC and the Regulations, these can be seen in their entirety in following FOIA request document:

http://defendindependence.org/OIF/IRS-FOIA.DOC

Also I find it amusing that you reference the intentions of a statue on one hand, yet you entirely discard Congressional Testimony on the other, for example the intention for establishing the XVI Amendment itself:

http://defendindependence.org/OIF/CR_XVIA_V44.PDF

...You people have posted that Congressional Reports are meaningless and do not matter, yet it is established legal doctrine that reviewing such testimony is highly important in determining the intention of an Act.

It is also quite telling that you all appear to hold the honest belief that levies can be justified and binding through a completely automated process, that no contact of any type is needed, no review, oversight, or authority of any kind. Just zap out a dozen digitized letters and the levy is all good, regardless.

As well it is nice to see you posting the reason for a statutes to clear up an existing issue from the year 1879, because according to you all the only IRC that matters is the version from 1986. So if that were actually true, which I have been shouting from the sky to you all about, this that the Revenue Acts are concurrent unless specifically stated otherwise, there would be no need for this section, now would there be!

Also your citation really does not serve to prove me wrong, not on any level, namely for the very obvious fact that the statute [6065] does in fact say so much more than what the original reason you posted says. Now sure that may have been the original reason for establishing this specific statute, but the fact remains that this statute [6065] attests to so much more than just that singular reason you had posted does.

[ASITStands]

Note, IRS employees are required to follow the IRM, period. End of discussion… if they do not follow their procedures, than people die!

WW was SO close, except that he missed the fact that the IRM section he cited (besides being 10 years out of date) applies to "Basic Examiner Responsibilities for Examination of Returns" and has absolutely nothing to do with computer-generated notices.


Examination "correspondence" as opposed to Collection Notices managed by the Automated Collection System (ACS). There's a difference between "correspondence" and "notice."

You missed the point! They ARE following their procedures. Examination Correspondence is always signed and Collection Notices (sent by ACS) are not. Simple enough.

Also I find it amusing that you reference the intentions of a statue on one hand, yet you entirely discard Congressional Testimony on the other, for example the intention for establishing the XVI Amendment itself:

http://defendindependence.org/OIF/CR_XVIA_V44.PDF

...You people have posted that Congressional Reports are meaningless and do not matter, yet it is established legal doctrine that reviewing such testimony is highly important in determining the intention of an Act.

There's a huge difference between a House Conference or Senate Report and the Congressional Record. Are you aware that ANYONE can publish in the Congressional Record?

Any Senator or Congress-critter can publish anything they wish in the Congressional Record.

IT'S NOT LAW!

House Conference or Senate Reports reflect the actual intent of Congress in legislation.

It is also quite telling that you all appear to hold the honest belief that levies can be justified and binding through a completely automated process, that no contact of any type is needed, no review, oversight, or authority of any kind. Just zap out a dozen digitized letters and the levy is all good, regardless.

Oh! You get contact. It's called Collection Due Process Hearing, and it comes at the receipt of Letter 1058 (Final Notice of Intent to Levy) or Letter 3172 (Notice of Federal Tax Lien).

If you'll notice on your copy, it specifically offers you a CDP Hearing before collection. That's called due process. Most tax deniers forfeit the opportunity by not requesting the hearing.

As well it is nice to see you posting the reason for a statutes to clear up an existing issue from the year 1879, because according to you all the only IRC that matters is the version from 1986. So if that were actually true, which I have been shouting from the sky to you all about, this that the Revenue Acts are concurrent unless specifically stated otherwise, there would be no need for this section, now would there be!

*1879 is a reference to the page in the Senate Report. See the *?

It was the 81st Congress, 1st Session, 1949. Or, did you miss that at the top? Duh!

[Weston White]

WRONG, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong! I have dozens upon dozen of all kinds of papers from the IRS, none of them meet the requirements as set in the IRM, the IRC, or the Regs, not a single one. Funny though when I make a FOIA Request for example I always get a signed form back with contact information on the employee handing my request and their supervisor contact information and I am also notified about the appeals procedure as well.

Also to note I have filed for FOIA on the names of the IRS people included in the first notices for my self and several other CtCers being there are several names that are used and guess what.......... ........... ........... There are no employees records for a single one of them, not a one... and even more to the point, try leaving them a voice mail because they never answer their phone and you will never ever get a call back. Ghosties!

[ASITStands]

WRONG, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong! I have dozens upon dozen of all kinds of papers from the IRS, none of them meet the requirements as set in the IRM, the IRC, or the Regs, not a single one. Funny though when I make a FOIA Request for example I always get a signed form back with contact information on the employee handing my request and their supervisor contact information and I am also notified about the appeals procedure as well.

Also to note I have filed for FOIA on the names of the IRS people included in the first notices for my self and several other CtCers being there are several names that are used and guess what.......... ........... ........... There are no employees records for a single one of them, not a one... and even more to the point, try leaving them a voice mail because they never answer their phone and you will never ever get a call back. Ghosties!

I understand your frustration with trying to deal with a PERSON at the IRS.

However, you're still confusing "Examination Correspondence" with "Collection Notices."

Have you ever received Letter 3176C? Or, Letter 3175C? How about Letter 1862C or 3219? Letter 105C, 12C, 131C, 1912, 1979C,2050, 2206C, 2269C, 2272C, 2320, 2566, 2644C, 2645C?

Each one of those are SIGNED by a PERSON and give contact information.

Your problem with FOIA Requests probably comes from being "too wordy" and not specific about the forms, documents or transcripts you're requesting. You're trying to teach the Disclosure Officer what the law says, and their only responsibility is to provide documents.

Disclosure Officers are NOT required to answer legal questions or respond to requests that do not request specific forms, documents or transcripts by name or number. Nothing more.

You're confusing the Disclosure Officer with Chief Counsel.

Believe me! If you continue on your current course, Chief Counsel will contact you soon enough, and you'll get an opportunity to ask specific questions and receive specific answers, not necessarily to your liking. Sometimes we learn too late.

EDIT: Let me add that sometimes requesting records of specific PERSONS working for the IRS leads to a dead end, only to see another FOIA Request be successful. It has to do with how you frame the request and where you send it.

I've seen responses to FOIA Requests saying, "Dennis Parizek is not an employee," and I have a complete history of Dennis Parizek from another FOIA Request sent to another office.

Depends on how it's framed and where it's sent. Don't assume the first answer is correct.

That's a mistake 'Cracking the Code' proponents make when seeking the assessment record. When the first response response says, "There are no records respondent to your request," they assume the penalty is not assessed or legal. Another record will show a valid penalty.

[Weston White]

...And I do not follow you, what does “*1879”?

Have to do with: "S. REP. 81-685, S. Rep. No. 685, 81ST Cong., 1ST Sess. 1949, 1949 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1876 wrote:"



Gee you are not intentionally leaving anything out are you now?

“It was the 81st Congress, 1st Session, 1949. Or, did you miss that at the top? Duh!”

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 61 > Subchapter A > PART IV > § 6065

NOTES:

Source
(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 749; Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, § 1906(a)(6), (b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1824, 1834.)
Amendments

1976—Pub. L. 94–455, § 1906(a)(6), struck out provisions relating to the authority of the Secretary or his delegate to require that any return, statement, or other document to be made under provision of the internal revenue laws or regulations shall be verified by an oath.
Pub. L. 94–455, § 1906(b)(13)(A), struck out “or his delegate” after “Secretary”.
Effective Date of 1976 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 94–455 effective on first day of first month which begins more than ninety days after Oct. 4, 1976, see section 1906(d)(1) of Pub. L. 94–455, set out as a note under section 6013 of this title.

[Weston White]

WRONG, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong! I have dozens upon dozen of all kinds of papers from the IRS, none of them meet the requirements as set in the IRM, the IRC, or the Regs, not a single one. Funny though when I make a FOIA Request for example I always get a signed form back with contact information on the employee handing my request and their supervisor contact information and I am also notified about the appeals procedure as well.

Also to note I have filed for FOIA on the names of the IRS people included in the first notices for my self and several other CtCers being there are several names that are used and guess what.......... ........... ........... There are no employees records for a single one of them, not a one... and even more to the point, try leaving them a voice mail because they never answer their phone and you will never ever get a call back. Ghosties!

I understand your frustration with trying to deal with a PERSON at the IRS.

However, you're still confusing "Examination Correspondence" with "Collection Notices."

Have you ever received Letter 3176C? Or, Letter 3175C? How about Letter 1862C or 3219? Letter 105C, 12C, 131C, 1912, 1979C,2050, 2206C, 2269C, 2272C, 2320, 2566, 2644C, 2645C?

Each one of those are SIGNED by a PERSON and give contact information.

Your problem with FOIA Requests probably comes from being "too wordy" and not specific about the forms, documents or transcripts you're requesting. You're trying to teach the Disclosure Officer what the law says, and their only responsibility is to provide documents.

Disclosure Officers are NOT required to answer legal questions or respond to requests that do not request specific forms, documents or transcripts by name or number. Nothing more.

You're confusing the Disclosure Officer with Chief Counsel.

Believe me! If you continue on your current course, Chief Counsel will contact you soon enough, and you'll get an opportunity to ask specific questions and receive specific answers, not necessarily to your liking. Sometimes we learn too late.

EDIT: Let me add that sometimes requesting records of specific PERSONS working for the IRS leads to a dead end, only to see another FOIA Request be successful. It has to do with how you frame the request and where you send it.

I've seen responses to FOIA Requests saying, "Dennis Parizek is not an employee," and I have a complete history of Dennis Parizek from another FOIA Request sent to another office.

Depends on how it's framed and where it's sent. Don't assume the first answer is correct.

That's a mistake 'Cracking the Code' proponents make when seeking the assessment record. When the first response response says, "There are no records respondent to your request," they assume the penalty is not assessed or legal. Another record will show a valid penalty.

No I am very specific and poignant in my FOIA requests, and those letters are not signed by anybody, they are all computer generated letters and the point of providing employee contact information is to be able to talk with an employee knowledge about your circumstance, otherwise what is the point. I am not really interested in debating with you about my case, because quite honestly all you have is presumption.

[ASITStands]

Weston wrote:

As well it is nice to see you posting the reason for a statutes to clear up an existing issue from the year 1879, because according to you all the only IRC that matters is the version from 1986. So if that were actually true, which I have been shouting from the sky to you all about, this that the Revenue Acts are concurrent unless specifically stated otherwise, there would be no need for this section, now would there be!

Emphasis added. Maybe I misunderstood you.

I wrote:

S. REP. 81-685, S. Rep. No. 685, 81ST Cong., 1ST Sess. 1949, 1949 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1876 wrote:This section gives the Commissioner authority to eliminate the oath in the case of corporate, fiduciary, partnership, estate, and gift-tax returns, and other returns or statements. The present law eliminates the oath in the case of individual income-tax returns and employment-tax returns. These changes will not only relieve the taxpayers of the burden *1879 of notarizing their returns but will expedite the processing by the Bureau of returns which might otherwise have to be sent back for compliance with the oath requirement.

This was a citation from Senate Report No. 685, 81st Congress, 1st Session, 1949.

It is cited as 1949 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1876.

The cite itself uses the number, *1879, which is the page cite for the report.

I thought you were thinking I was citing a report that changed a "reason for a statutes to clear up an existing issue from the year 1879" but maybe I was wrong.

[Weston White]

That's a mistake 'Cracking the Code' proponents make when seeking the assessment record. When the first response response says, "There are no records respondent to your request," they assume the penalty is not assessed or legal. Another record will show a valid penalty.

ROFL, and that is great then, well guess what the IRS has 60 days thereafter to provide that information to me, and it is now going on over a year now and still nothing, still no such records exist. However, they have been able to provide us with other records that are based from the core records, but not the core records themselves... Sort of like what happens when you skip necessary steps. That is why God invented instructions, e.g. the IRM. They are to be followed. Because when those instructions are not followed... people DIE!

[ASITStands]

I am not really interested in debating with you about my case, because quite honestly all you have is presumption.

So, let me see? You are NOT interested in debating about your own case, but you want to debate everyone else (including 'gottago') about THEIR cases? Hmm.

Once an assessment is made, Examination is over! No more Examination Correspondence for you, and no more Letters SIGNED by a PERSON but Collection Notices generated by ACS.

Something else, 'Cracking the Code' proponents fail to understand.

And, frivolous penalties, pursuant to IRC § 6702 (a) or (b), are not subject to Deficiency Procedures, so there's no Examination Correspondence involved but only Collection Notices AFTER imposition (or assessment) of the penalties.

If you want to dispute it, you have to either file a Levy Action in Tax Court (where you can dispute a frivolous penalty), or pay it in full and file a refund claim in the Court of Claims.

And, God didn't invent Instructions! The Commissioner did.

[ASITStands]

... well guess what the IRS has 60 days thereafter to provide that information to me, and it is now going on over a year now and still nothing, still no such records exist.

There is no requirement for the IRS to provide anything to you within 60 days.

[ASITStands]

That is why God invented instructions, e.g. the IRM. They are to be followed. Because when those instructions are not followed... people DIE!

If you think that God invented the IRM, you're nuts!

It's a joke, Weston! A joke! Lighten up.

I'm outta here. I have work to do (like the next brief we're filing in court).

[Weston White]

I am not really interested in debating with you about my case, because quite honestly all you have is presumption.

So, let me see? You are NOT interested in debating about your own case, but you want to debate everyone else (including 'gottago') about THEIR cases? Hmm.

Once an assessment is made, Examination is over! No more Examination Correspondence for you, and no more Letters SIGNED by a PERSON but Collection Notices generated by ACS.

Something else, 'Cracking the Code' proponents fail to understand.

And, frivolous penalties, pursuant to IRC § 6702 (a) or (b), are not subject to Deficiency Procedures, so there's no Examination Correspondence involved but only Collection Notices AFTER imposition (or assessment) of the penalties.

If you want to dispute it, you have to either file a Levy Action in Tax Court (where you can dispute a frivolous penalty), or pay it in full and file a refund claim in the Court of Claims.

And, God didn't invent Instructions! The Commissioner did.

Nope, I am letting that person know of the correct process, should they choose to stand their own ground and follow the law as intended by our Nations Framers. I do not want to know the specifics of their case or debate about the hypothetical. Which that is what you are attempting to do. I just really do not care to do that with you or anybody else. It is just not relevant, it misses the end goal completely.

[ASITStands]

It is just not relevant, it misses the end goal completely.

It's entirely the END goal but that's for another day.

[Weston White]

... well guess what the IRS has 60 days thereafter to provide that information to me, and it is now going on over a year now and still nothing, still no such records exist.

There is no requirement for the IRS to provide anything to you within 60 days.

Yes there is it is called the notice and demand for tax:

The official ‘notice and demand for tax’ is for the purpose of (1) giving notice to each person liable for any unpaid taxes, (2) to state the amount due, (3) to demand the payment thereof, and (4) of which is due as soon as possible and within 60-days after having made the assessment pursuant to 26 USC § 6203, as per 26 USC § 6303 and 26 CFR 301.6303-1.

As well there is the 'notice of claim disallowance' which is due within six months, though the IRS never issues that to any CtCer either.

[Weston White]

It is just not relevant, it misses the end goal completely.

It's entirely the END goal but that's for another day.

No debating the IRC is moot. Other than of course to point out how your own notions frequently conflict, with what is written on the books. You can't get that right, what else have you gotten wrong? That is besides the date of that the XVI Amendment was ratified... laff

[ASITStands]

Yes there is it is called the notice and demand for tax:

Notice and Demand for Tax, not Penalty.

And, I understood you comment to be in connection with a FOIA Request. My bad.

[Weston White]

Yes there is it is called the notice and demand for tax:

Notice and Demand for Tax, not Penalty.

And, I understood you comment to be in connection with a FOIA Request. My bad.

You can't have a penalty if you were correct about the accuracy of the testimony of the taxes due or the taxes you had incurred. So the question because how can the IRS be sure you are wrong? THEY NEVER DID THE ASSESSMENT TO VERIFY ANYTHING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER... WHAT IF I AM RIGHT? WHAT IF I WOULD HAVE BEEN DUE A LARGE ENOUGH REFUND TO COVER THE PENALTY, THOUGH THEY STILL SEEK TO UNNECESSARILY LEVY ME FOR SOMETHING THEY HAD ALL ALONG? WHAT IF THEY HAD ENOUGH THE ENTIRE TIME TO COVER MY PENATLY CHARGES? WHAT IF I AM DUE MONEY BACK AND I REFUSE TO AMEND MY RETURN? DO THEY JUST GET TO KEEP THOSE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS THAT WERE WITHHELD FOREVER? DOES THAT MONEY JUST BECOME THE GOVERNMENTS THEN?

Wake up, get serious.

BTW, a penalty is really just another tax.

[ASITStands]

Then dispute it in tax court or pay it in full and dispute it in the Court of Claims.

Simple enough for a man of letters, such as yourself.

If you're as right as you suggest, you'll not shrink from the opportunity to create precedent.

[Weston White]

Then dispute it in tax court or pay it in full and dispute it in the Court of Claims.

Simple enough for a man of letters, such as yourself.

If you're as right as you suggest, you'll not shrink from the opportunity to create precedent.

Yea, sorry I am not paying 15,000+ dollars for an attorney to represent me in district court. That would be stupid of me.

And this is exactly why the IRS gets away with doing what it is that they do. Geez, my own Congressman will not even aid me in this matter, he won't say I am wrong and he will not say I am right... no opinion at all.

[Quixote]

You can't have a penalty if you were correct about the accuracy of the testimony of the taxes due or the taxes you had incurred. So the question because how can the IRS be sure you are wrong?

Because all CTC returns claiming a refund of withholding are internally inconsistent.

THEY NEVER DID THE ASSESSMENT TO VERIFY ANYTHING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER...

That is not the purpose of an assessment.

WHAT IF I AM RIGHT?

That is the one good point you make in your post. You happen to be wrong, but frivolous penalties have been assessed before and will be assessed again. Without a pre-assessment appeal available, I believe there are legitimate due process questions left unanswered about those $5,000 penalties.

WHAT IF I WOULD HAVE BEEN DUE A LARGE ENOUGH REFUND TO COVER THE PENALTY, THOUGH THEY STILL SEEK TO UNNECESSARILY LEVY ME FOR SOMETHING THEY HAD ALL ALONG?

Then you did not follow up on your refund claim. If more than six months have passed since you filed a refund claim, you can file a refund suit in federal district court or the Court of Claims.

WHAT IF THEY HAD ENOUGH THE ENTIRE TIME TO COVER MY PENATLY CHARGES? WHAT IF I AM DUE MONEY BACK AND I REFUSE TO AMEND MY RETURN? DO THEY JUST GET TO KEEP THOSE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS THAT WERE WITHHELD FOREVER? DOES THAT MONEY JUST BECOME THE GOVERNMENTS THEN?

No, only for six months plus the time it takes to settle your refund suit.