Champion and the IRS

[cynicalflyer]

*From:* "Liberty-Freedom 1776"
<liberty-freedom1...@earthlink.net><liberty-freedom1...@earthlink.net>
*Cc:* therevolutionarycoalit...@yahoogroups.com
*Date:* Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:36 pm
*Subject:* [citizensoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica_irs] How to Enjoy a Meeting
With The IRS by Dave Champion

By Dave Champion:

Dear Friends,

Well, yesterday was my meeting with the IRS pursuant to a summons that they
had left at my house several weeks ago.

First of all I want to say that I had a GREAT time!!!!!! If you are properly
prepared (both mentally and with documents), remain calm, and pay strict
attention to all that is being said and done in the meeting room you can
demolish their purported authority to summons from many different legal
perspectives. I know I said this before, but I had FUN!!!

As always, I was affable as could be with the Revenue Officers (herein RO);
after all, if you've got the law on your side, there's no reason to be
unpleasant. The old adage, "kill them with kindness [or at least civility]"
comes to mind. This also has the added benefit of helping to over-turn the
garbage that they are fed in training about us "Patriots". Being well
mannered and having sufficient evidence to devastate their authority is the
best revenge! They HATE that!!!!

Whether it be the style of the new, more friendly, IRS or just the "tactics"
of these particular RO's, we sat and BS'd for about an hour before they ever
asked any questions that fell within the scope of "producing books and
records". That was fine with me because I had blocked out several hours for
the meeting and and I had decided many days ago that I would not "take the
fight to them", but rather would allow them to voluntarily enter the

minefield! It was kinda cute because the lead RO (Billingsley) just sort of
slipped a question in about what I'm doing for a living these days. It
really sounded quite conversational. It almost sounded like a common
question that someone might ask you over a friendly beer - almost, but not
quite!

At that point I asked if we were entering the portion of the meeting that
would fall under his alleged authority to summons me for books and records.
He was not happy that his little ploy had not worked, but he admitted that
we were now in that area. As I had written to him in advance and had
requested several documents to support his claim of alleged authority, he
voluntarily handed me (without being asked a second time) a copy of the

Delegation of Authority Order which he stated showed his delegated authority
from the District Director to summons me. Interestingly, upon review, the
Order [LA-6 (rev 16)] showed that the authority to "issue" summons was
indeed delegated to RO's with a GS-9 and above rating [item 3 in the Order].
However, in item 4 of the Order I found that the authority to "serve" the
summons was delegated ONLY to a Tax Fraud Investigative

Aide. Isn't it nice of the District Director to be so specific! I asked the
RO who had served the summons at my home if he was also a Tax Fraud
Investigative Aide. He stated that he was not. I informed him that we had a
little problem. I told him that if he was not a Tax Fraud Investigative
Aide, then his service of the summons was a nullity because he exceeded his
authority and everything from that moment forward was legally void. He
wasn't too hot on that little reality check!

RO Billingsley then started making accusations of non-cooperation. In the
spirit of cooperation (and having far more ammunition up my sleeve) I told
him that if he preferred, we could pretend that his service was good and
move on. He liked that idea and then requested my books and records. I
explained that I meant that we should go on to the next question concerning
the validity of his alleged authority. I wish I had a blood pressure monitor
hooked up to that guy! I think it would have exploded!

I thought I'd go easy on him a while, so I moved directly to the language of
IRC section 7602. Section 7602 state (in its relevant part) that, "...the
Secretary is authorized...to summon the person liable for tax...". I pointed
out to the RO's that the language of 7602, i.e. "the person liable", is
present tense. In other words, in order for 7602 to have any legal effect,
the IRS must ALREADY KNOW that the person IS liable for a tax. I pointed out
that section 7602 does not contain any authority for the Service to go on a
"fishing trip" in the hope of uncovering some fact(s) that might then create
liability. I then asked the RO's to place "on the record" (I was taping the
meeting) any evidence they had that proved I was liable for any tax
contained in the IRC for the years indicated on the summons. As could be
expected, there was no evidence.

I thought it was time to get ugly again, so I shifted to the IRS' history
and organizational statement in Part 1100 of the Internal Revenue Manual
(IRM). I asked the RO's in which Division they worked. Both stated that they
worked in the assigned to the Collections Division. I had brought copies of
the section which outlines the organization of the various
Offices/Divisions/Departments, etc. of the Service. In the section I
brought, it numerically designates the Office of the Assistant Commissioner
(International) as 1132. Every division/department within the Office of the
Assistant Commissioner (International) is designated with 1132 followed by a
period and then one or two more digits. As an example, the Office of
Resource Management is 1132.5, while the Director of the Office of Resource
Management is 1132.51.

Now watch this series carefully:

Officer of Asst. Commissioner (International) 1132 Office of Taxpayer
Service and Compliance 1132.7 Director, Office of Taxpayer Service and
Compliance 1132.71 Collection Division 1132.72.

Hello! That doesn't take a rocket scientist. And for those inquiring minds -
yes, 1132.72 is the ONLY collection division listed in the entire IRS
organizational statement. Needless to say, both RO's vehemently denied that
they work for the Assistant Commissioner (International), but could not
provide any evidence to refute their own manual.

I then read them the functional description of their division from 1132.72,
to wit; "Executes the full range of collection activities in delinquent
accounts which includes securing delinquent returns involving taxpayers
outside the United States and those in United States territories, and
possessions and in Puerto Rico. Administers the program for mutual
collection assistance under tax treaties. Provide assistance...". Despite
the fact that there is only one collection division mentioned in the org
statement and that the functional description is from their own manual, they
were adamant that I had lost my mind! Of course when I suggested that they
return me to sanity by providing documentary evidence which would dispute
1132.72, they demurred. Hmmm.

I then went to the old standard - there are no implementing regulations for
7602 in Title 26. The only reg promulgated by the Secretary for 7602 is
found in Title 27 (which deals exclusively with ATF matters). The RO's
stated that the statute was sufficient and that there was no need for regs
in this matter. I simply reminded them that the Secretary obviously thought
otherwise because he had promulgated regs for 7602 in Title 27. I pointed

out that that fact clearly confirms that a reg IS needed to implement 7602
and that the Secretary had apparently decided that 7602 was NOT to be
applied to tax matters other than those relating to alcohol, tobacco and
firearms. Of course, once again, the RO's assured me that I was an idiot and
that they did have authority to apply 7602 to me in matters of non-ATF
taxes. Needless to say, I was told that I would simply have to take their
word for it.

And last but not least, I informed them that Treasury Decision 120-01 (which
transferred the functions of the IRS' Division of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms to the newly-created "Bureau" of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms)
specifically transferred the functions of Revenue Officers to the BATF. Boy
oh boy! You would have thought I set off firecrackers in their pants! They
got down right nasty about this time. Anyway, I asked them if they had any
evidence that I was involved in ATF activities. Of course the answer was
"no".

About this time I think they were getting tired of getting beat down with
their own agency's paperwork showing the authority they DIDN'T have, so they
decided that our meeting was over. Too bad - I was having such a good time
and I had so much more to offer!

Take care,

Dave Champion

*"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the
people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."**
*-- Patrick Henry

[The Observer]

Dave's next encounters will probably be not so thrilling and exciting. He should expect the following:

(a) A letter from Counsel giving him a last chance to comply with the summons and produce the records and documents.

(b) An order to appear in District Court to explain to a judge why he has not produced the books and records, followed by a deadline issued by the judge to produce these documents in court,

(c) one or more subsequent appearances in court, depending on the judge's patience. Dave should probably bring a toothbrush to these appearances.

[Quixote]

Dave won't need his toothbrush unless he's grown a backbone recently. As Wes pointed out in an earlier thread, viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4663&start=40 , during Dave's last brush with incarceration, he folded while the clang of the cell door was still echoing.

[Duke2Earl]

The silly part is that he actually thinks he's won. Yes, he can stall them with the administrative tapdancing but that isn't going to change the outcome. I hope he has fun with that.

[grixit]

That was the part of the investigation involving unarmed data collectors. The next group to come out will not be so indulgent.

In any case, i hope that at trial those agents describe what really happened.

Champion: Alakazam! You have no authority! You have to move on.

Agent: Sir, we still need those records.

Champion: What part of Alakazam don't you understand? I said move on!

Agent: Sir, there's no need for this.

Champion: Alakazam! Alakazam! You have no authority, get out of my house!

Agent: Very well sir, we will pass this case on to another department. I hope you will reconsider your attitude.

[Exeunt]

[The Observer]

Dave won't need his toothbrush unless he's grown a backbone recently.

Only if he shows up with the information. District judges are very testy when you appear in court on an extension and have no valid reason to not provide what the judge had previously directed you to bring with you. Telling the judge at that point, "I didn't think you meant it and I'll bring it next time" isn't going to work.

[Noah]

This is history, Dave was held in comtempt and he purged the contempt. Action is closed.
I am sure the Government is burning the midnight oil and using the Patriot Act to it's best advantage. Thats ok because Dave has a huge legal defense fund for battle when the Barbarans are at the Gate. If Barbarians can convict Big Dave what chance does the average Joe have? His new book that is due out in November is written so well that a person "with average intelligence" will only have to read chapter 7 and 8 twice to understand them. I wonder if he going to have Mr. Rogers write the introduction ? You Go Dave !!

[jg]

If Barbarians can convict Big Dave what chance does the average Joe have?

Ideally, Joe and Dave both have no chance when the government has sufficient evidence of the commission of a crime.
Practically, Joe and Dave might still manage not to get convicted due to ineffective prosecution or unpredictable juries.
Actually, Joe and Dave will still be subject to examination and civil action to collect any tax due.

[The Observer]

In any case, i hope that at trial those agents describe what really happened.

Champion: Alakazam! You have no authority! You have to move on.

Agent: Sir, we still need those records.

Champion: What part of Alakazam don't you understand? I said move on!

Agent: Sir, there's no need for this.

Champion: Alakazam! Alakazam! You have no authority, get out of my house!

Agent: Very well sir, we will pass this case on to another department. I hope you will reconsider your attitude.

[Exeunt]

Seems to me that you should have added some lines for a Greek chorus which would be appropriate for the impending tragedy.

[wserra]

If Barbarians can convict Big Dave what chance does the average Joe have?

If Barbarians can convict Al Capone what chance does Joe Smith have?

Pretty good, I'd say. Those are equivalent non sequiturs.

[The Operative]

This is history, Dave was held in comtempt and he purged the contempt. Action is closed.

This is not history. This is, probably, a different summons. Dave was held in contempt for not complying with an earlier summons. When he was told by the court to either comply with the summons or go to jail, he chose to comply with the summons. That is the reason the earlier action is closed.

Dave is wrong on section 7602. He conveniently leaves out the opening paragraph...

For the purpose of ascertaining the correctness of any return, making a return where none has been made, determining the liability of any person for any internal revenue tax or the liability at law or in equity of any transferee or fiduciary of any person in respect of any internal revenue tax, or collecting any such liability, the Secretary is authorized— ...

He also ignores the inconvenient words after "the person liable"

To summon the person liable for tax or required to perform the act...

His reliance on IRM 1100 is also invalid. I may be wrong, but I believe that IRM 1100 has been superseded by IRM 1.1.2.

Dave's implementing regulations argument is listed as a frivolous argument by the IRS. The courts have specifically stated that the promulgation of regulations is not required as a prerequisite to the enforcement of the provisions of the code. See United States v. Saunders, 951 F.2d 1065 (9th Cir., 1991) and Langert v. United States, KTC 1995-398, Case No. 3-94-1464 (D.Minn. 1995) You could also read LPC's explanation at http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#regulations

BTW, Treasury Decision 120-01 only transferred those agents who were under the IRS division of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to the BATF. It did not transfer ALL IRS agents to the BATF.

I am sure the Government is burning the midnight oil and using the Patriot Act to it's best advantage. Thats ok because Dave has a huge legal defense fund for battle when the Barbarans are at the Gate. If Barbarians can convict Big Dave what chance does the average Joe have? His new book that is due out in November is written so well that a person "with average intelligence" will only have to read chapter 7 and 8 twice to understand them. I wonder if he going to have Mr. Rogers write the introduction ? You Go Dave !!

It doesn't matter how "huge" his legal defense fund is, if he is wrong, he will lose.

[Noah]

Dave is wrong on section 7602. He conveniently leaves out the opening paragraph...

For the purpose of ascertaining the correctness of any return, making a return where none has been made, determining the liability of any person for any internal revenue tax or the liability at law or in equity of any transferee or fiduciary of any person in respect of any internal revenue tax, or collecting any such liability, the Secretary is authorized— ...

He also ignores the inconvenient words after "the person liable"

To summon the person liable for tax or required to perform the act...

He also overlooked or ignored..."or any other person the Secretary may deem proper".

[.]

I don't believe a word of it beyond "yesterday was my meeting."

No one with a "huge legal defense fund" would have anything to say beyond "hello" and "good-bye," counsel would be doing all of the talking.

He's full of it and he's already lost, he just doesn't realize it yet.

[Noah]

This story was originally posted by Dave way back in 2004.

"Dear Friends,

Well, yesterday (Thursday, September 30, 2004) was my meeting with the IRS pursuant to a summons that they had left at my house several weeks ago.

First of all I want to say that I had a GREAT time! If you are properly prepared (both mentally and with documents), remain calm, and pay strict attention to all that is being said and done in the meeting room you can demolish their purported authority to summons from many different legal perspectives. I know I said this before, but I had FUN!"

The end result was that he eventually complied. Turned over his computer complete with passwords and who know what else. He says he was having a good time with the Marshalls as he was cuffed, chained and detained while he and his attorney started kissing butt to purge the contempt of court.

[Tax Man]

I really can't wait 'til this jackass gets thrown in jail.

[Thule]

This story was originally posted by Dave way back in 2004.

Dave eventually folds, and people still pass the story around like a great victory? My my, that's like reading half of Anna Karenina and beeing pleased that the unhappy couple reconciled and took a nice vacation.

[Thule]

Seems to me that you should have added some lines for a Greek chorus which would be appropriate for the impending tragedy.

[Cue chorus of gibbering lunatics]

[LPC]

Yes, this the exact same story that Mark Yannone posted back in 2005.

Old news.

And demonstrating once again that tax deniers are not well oriented in space and time.

[cynicalflyer]

Yes, this the exact same story that Mark Yannone posted back in 2005.

Old news.

And demonstrating once again that tax deniers are not well oriented in space and time.

This was recirculated several days/weeks ago as if new. I didn't realize.

[Quixote]

Yes, this the exact same story that Mark Yannone posted back in 2005.

Old news.

And demonstrating once again that tax deniers are not well oriented in space and time.

This was recirculated several days/weeks ago as if new. I didn't realize.

Tax deniers have so few good stories, they have to recycle the ones they have.