Ex-Navy TP tries to save his pension

[ASITStands]

I'm the one dealing with the IRS to get that certificate of nonattachment, or that certificate of release of lien -- not you, Steve. I'm the one dealing with the IRS to get that penalty waived (I have a pretty good track record on that, by the way) -- not you. I'm the one calling the IRS to get this tax or that penalty put in "53" or "currently not collectible" status -- stopping the collection efforts of the IRS -- not you. I'm also the one dealing with the IRS when a client is examined -- not you. I'm the one getting the "no change" RAR from the Revenue Agent -- not you. I'm the one protecting taxpayers -- not you, Steve.

I'd be interested in hearing more about getting penalties waived, etc.

Much of my work with repentant non-filers and tax deniers is trying to do the same.

Perhaps it should be another thread in another part of the forum. Some sort of a general outline of the procedures relied upon and the steps a practitioner goes through to get the results described or some sort of reading list that would help in similar situations. Thx.

If those who post to this board are truly concerned about tax deniers, and wish to both convince them to change their ways, as well as lead them out of the morass in which they find themselves, perhaps such a discussion would be of some advantage.

And, leave the attitudes behind! I've subscribed to certain practitioner's resources that do just that, and I think it would be beneficial to do something like that here. Maybe even sub-divide the subject into "How to overcome a specific tax problem like CtC returns, etc."

[ASITStands]

By the way, in regard to 26 U.S.C. § 6065 and its predecessor IRC § 3809 (1939):

Appellant asserts that even if § 1001 was at one time applicable to false statements made to Treasury agents § 1001 was repealed by implication, in so far as it ever applied to internal revenue matters, by the enactment on August 27, 1949, of 26 U.S. C.A. § 3809,10 a statute dealing specifically with verified statements made to the Treasury Department which are false.

....

We find nothing in the language or legislative history of 26 U.S.C.A. § 3809 which convinces us that Congress intended by enactment of this statute to decrease the scope of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1001. "If Congress had intended to repeal the law here challenged, it would have been a simple matter to give expression to such intent." Ex parte Berkoff, supra, 65 F.Supp. at page 980. Enactment of 26 U.S.C.A. § 3809 was accompanied by express repeal of certain other laws.11 Yet there was no mention of § 1001 of Title 18 U.S.C.A. We think the congressional intent in enacting § 3809 was merely to simplify the task of both taxpayer and the Bureau of Internal Revenue by permitting a verified return to be substituted for a notarized return in certain situations.12 Section 3809(a) was apparently intended to take the place of 26 U.S.C.A. § 145(c),13 which was repealed. The statutes in question describe different offenses. 18 U.S.C.A. § 1001 prohibits knowing and wilful oral or written false statements made in a matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency. 26 U.S.C.A. § 3809 is concerned with the verification of a written return, statement or other document which is not believed to be true and correct as to every material matter.

10 - § 3809. Verification of returns; penalties of perjury

"(a) Penalties. Any person who willfully makes and subscribes any return, statement, or other document, which contains or is verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, and which he does not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter, shall be guilty of a felony, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

* * * * * * *

"(c) Verification in lieu of oath. The Commissioner, under regulations prescribed by him with the aproval of the Secretary, may require that any return, statement, or other document required to be filed under any provision of the internal revenue laws shall contain or be verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, and such declaration shall be in lieu of any oath otherwise required. Added Aug. 27, 1949, c. 517, § 4(a), 63 Stat. 667."

11 - 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 51(d), 145(c) and 1630. Act of August 27, 1949, c. 517, § 4(b), 63 Stat. 668

12 - The pertinent committee report states as follows:

"Section 4. Verification of Returns.

"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 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." Sen.Rep.No.685, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., Part II, § 4 (1949).

The Legislative Intent said nothing about documents prepared by the Treasury.

[Prof]

ASITStands wrote:

Perhaps it should be another thread in another part of the forum. Some sort of a general outline of the procedures relied upon and the steps a practitioner goes through to get the results described or some sort of reading list that would help in similar situations. Thx.

I'll try to start a thread this week from a bankruptcy perspective. In our practice, my partners (one takes the lead on these matters) have generally had success in chapter 13 and 11 in negotiating with the IRS. I know of few, even those who advertise, who have much luck with the compromise and settlement route these days.

Our success (my partner Dick's success) may be based upon two factors: the relationship we have developed (he has developed) with the San Antonio, Austin and Dallas IRS representatives and -- most importantly -- the professionalism and expertise of those offices in dealing with the non-filer or the unpaid "941's" that we ususally see in our practice. We have not represented a tax denier/protestor to date. Just folks who haven't paid or haven't filed or both.

[ASITStands]

If you want information, ask a question. Don't start off with absurd statements that clearly display your ignorance and then, later, pretend you were seeking information.

You are the one who is wrong. If you had bothered reading my last few replies, I was passing on info I'd learned through local patriot groups. I was not seeking anything. Label it ignorance or whatever else your pea brain is capable of imagining.

I didn't realize you were "passing on info ... from local patriot groups."

Both 'Nikki' and 'CaptainKickback' advised you to preface your questions with an explanation as to why you're asking, or pose questions instead of making statements later proved wrong.

It might change how you're treated on the forum.

[ASITStands]

ASITStands wrote:

Perhaps it should be another thread in another part of the forum. Some sort of a general outline of the procedures relied upon and the steps a practitioner goes through to get the results described or some sort of reading list that would help in similar situations. Thx.

I'll try to start a thread this week from a bankruptcy perspective. In our practice, my partners (one takes the lead on these matters) have generally had success in chapter 13 and 11 in negotiating with the IRS. I know of few, even those who advertise, who have much luck with the compromise and settlement route these days.

Our success (my partner Dick's success) may be based upon two factors: the relationship we have developed (he has developed) with the San Antonio, Austin and Dallas IRS representatives and -- most importantly -- the professionalism and expertise of those offices in dealing with the non-filer or the unpaid "941's" that we ususally see in our practice. We have not represented a tax denier/protestor to date. Just folks who haven't paid or haven't filed or both.

Thanks. That sounds interesting, and I, too, know few who have had success with offers in compromise and settlement, even in light of the recent market downturns.

[Number Six]

It would be interesting to know what the operating principle is in the case of how the IRS decides which "offers in compromise" to accept such as those that are promoted heavily on t.v. commercials--i.e. from the standpoint of financial consequences to the party in question and to the government for a case to go on, or after a thorough inventorying of assets and liabilities by a person/couple, it is determined that according to the law, such a settlement is legal and best for all concerned?

[ASITStands]

It would be interesting to know what the operating principle is in the case of how the IRS decides which "offers in compromise" to accept such as those that are promoted heavily on t.v. commercials--i.e. from the standpoint of financial consequences to the party in question and to the government for a case to go on, or after a thorough inventorying of assets and liabilities by a person/couple, it is determined that according to the law, such a settlement is legal and best for all concerned?

Another interesting question would be, "Does anyone know any of those 'pennies-on-the-dollar' offers in compromise promoted in the advertisements?" Doesn't mean there ain't any!

[Number Six]

Successful OIC's are few are far between. It is typical of advertisements to present the most optimistic outcome imaginable as taxpayers stare down threatening and intimidating letters. Plus with the general legal and tax ignorance of most citizens, they will be hard-pressed to question the ads. If the OIC is rejected, what will be my options? If I am saved such whopping $$$, how much will I have to pay the tax lawyers for getting me off the hook? Are the most visible tax attorneys, JK Harris & Co., the most competant?

[jcolvin2]

Acceptance rate is roughly 25%.

From the Internal Revenue Service Data Book, 2008:

2005 2006 2007 2008
Offers in compromise
(thousands)5:
Number of offers
received 74 59 46 44
Number of offers
accepted 19 15 12 11
Amount of offers
accepted 325,640 283,746 228,975 200,103

[grixit]

I'd like to see that broken down by what percentage of the tax debt was offered.

[jcolvin2]

From a TIGTA Report, "The Offer in Compromise Program Is Beneficial but
Needs to Be Used More Efficiently in the Collection of Taxes," July 17, 2006, Reference Number: 2006-30-100:


The benefit to those taxpayers whose offers are accepted can be significant. IRS data show that, during FY 2005, over 19,000 offers (totaling almost $326 million) were accepted for liabilities of $1.9 billion. Figure 2 shows a comparison of the offer amount to the liabilities compromised for FYs 1996 through 2005. For the 10-year period, the IRS accepted almost 270,000 offers, compromising $21.6 billion in balances due in exchange for offers totaling almost $3.0 billion. These accepted offers represent approximately 14 cents paid per dollar owed.

[The Observer]

It would be interesting to know what the operating principle is in the case of how the IRS decides which "offers in compromise" to accept such as those that are promoted heavily on t.v. commercials--i.e. from the standpoint of financial consequences to the party in question and to the government for a case to go on, or after a thorough inventorying of assets and liabilities by a person/couple, it is determined that according to the law, such a settlement is legal and best for all concerned?

The operating principle is the same as it has always been: does the amount offered by the taxpayer equal or exceeds what the IRS believes that it can collect legally from the taxpayer. The only other principle in play since the passage of RRA '98 has been Effective Tax Administration offers that are based on cricitical sensitive issues where the government would accept an offer that would normally be rejected , such as the example of a senior citizen who has equity in their home, but is reliant on that equity to provide for their everday necessary living expenses. Requiring the senior citizen to use the equity for the purpose of funding their offer would be counterproductive and insensitive to that taxpayer's situation.