New hero at LH falls...

[Gregg]

In just the last couple weeks, Connie Spam, a new poster in LostLand started posting, her fame was based on the claim that she just sent a nice letter to the IRS explaining that she didn't owe any tax, please send me back all I've paid in, thank you. And she claimed she did get a refund, no questions asked.

Sounded like BS to me, but maybe not. Seems that she recently got a letter from the IRS....

I've answered her questions in red

Update:

A friend of mine and I both got letters LTR3176 from Ogden on Friday, right on the heels of our refund checks.
I got 2 letters, one for 2007, and one for 2008.
The letters were not handsigned, but had a printed signature, and the name listed is Maureen Green Mgr.,Exam SC Suppor.

I don't know what Exam SC Suppor means.
The letter states I took a position which has no basis in the law, and other vague allegations, etc.
It suggests a $5000 penalty if I do not send corrected returns within 30 days.

Same for my friend.

I haven't decided how to reply yet, but I know I have some questions for them.

My thoughts on this frivolous process are this:
1) IRS refunded our withholdings without contesting, because they know there is no law that says they have a right to keep it.
No, they refunded your withholding because it's a big busy place and they made a mistake in doing so.
2) Then they call the return filing frivolous, because what are you gonna do about it?
Move into tax court as a plaintiff, to get a ruling that your filing is not frivolous?
I don't think so. The burden of proof is with the plaintiff, and the defendant (IRS) happens to own the venue, judge, attorneys, etc.
Fat chance of getting justice there.
Someone posted here a study that concluded Tax Court may be biased in favor of the Plaintiffs. You won't win because you're wrong, not because it's fixed.
3) IRS wants to impose the $5000 fine, which they know we can't pay, because they have seen our financial situation, as reflected on all our 1040s we filed over the years.
This gives them the option of a levy or lien against any assets we may have, without having to prove any tax liability.
Buy a new refrigerator, that way you'll have a nice cardboard box to move into when they sell your house
4) They can theoretically do this on any number of people, if they cannot meet quota any other way.
Well, not exactly. They can do it to a lot of people in the LH forum though, because you're all running like lemmings for the cliff.

So I'm looking at it from that perspective right from the start.
We have no choice, as our backs are against the proverbial wall, ever since we tried to work for a living in America (or is it the US federal corporation? Where am I? --Don't answer, that's a rhetorical question.)

Last week,before I got those IRS letters, I was fascinated by this terribly poorly spelled document which I came across:

http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... tAtSea.pdf

That's right! This mental giant is looking to our own Van Pelt Nonsense Machine for help!

I already posted this link in another thread, but I'm re-posting it here for a wider audience.
Tell me what you think please.

I think it's going to suck to be you very soon, even worse than it does now.

Blessings,
Connie

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2464

[David Merrill]

That is Pete's SOP I hear. People get in trouble facing arguments for a zero return based on such tripe as "shall" or "define Income" or blah de blah... and try getting their Refund Checks taken off the website, then they are banished. The Check stays up shill to attract more book sales, and like Nikki says - if we keep repeating stuff over and over, that will make it factually sound in law.

You are incorrect with you comment:

No, they refunded your withholding because it's a big busy place and they made a mistake in doing so.

The reason is that the taxpayer signing under penalty of perjury by law has the first right to be heard.




Regards,

David Merrill.

[Gregg]

Shut up Van Pelt, you're a mentally ill dipstick with delusions of grandeur who lives a miserable life in his mother's basement, cut off from his own family and the laughingstock of several forums not to mention the county courthouse where you live. "Your" clerk thinks you're the nuttiest thing this side of a snickers factory and the people at the news stand/snack bar make fun of you. I don't doubt mothers shield their children when you approach.

[David Merrill]

Shut up Van Pelt, you're a mentally ill dipstick with delusions of grandeur who lives a miserable life in his mother's basement, cut off from his own family and the laughingstock of several forums not to mention the county courthouse where you live. "Your" clerk thinks you're the nuttiest thing this side of a snickers factory and the people at the news stand/snack bar make fun of you. I don't doubt mothers shield their children when you approach.

Are you talking to me? My name is David Merrill.

[Famspear]

You are incorrect with you comment:

No, they refunded your withholding because it's a big busy place and they made a mistake in doing so.

The reason is that the taxpayer signing under penalty of perjury by law has the first right to be heard.




Regards,

David Merrill.

No, the IRS issued the refund because it's a big busy place and they made a mistake in doing so. And your name is David Merrill Van Pelt.

[David Merrill]

You are incorrect with you comment:

No, they refunded your withholding because it's a big busy place and they made a mistake in doing so.

The reason is that the taxpayer signing under penalty of perjury by law has the first right to be heard.




Regards,

David Merrill.

No, the IRS issued the refund because it's a big busy place and they made a mistake in doing so. And your name is David Merrill Van Pelt.

I concede that the IRS agent presumes that since the taxpayer signed a form under the penalty of perjury that the Refund is likely due. Maybe the IRS agent never even decides - it might just be scanned electronically and the refund check generated.


You do not get to change my name.

[Famspear]

I concede that the IRS agent presumes that since the taxpayer signed a form under the penalty of perjury that the Refund is likely due. Maybe the IRS agent never even decides - it might just be scanned electronically and the refund check generated.

Yes, generally, an "IRS agent" does not review tax refund claims -- at least that's my understanding. Someone who works for the IRS (I don't) can give a more detailed description of the processing of tax refund claims, though.

You do not get to change my name.

That's correct. I cannot change your name. And if you want to change your name from "David Merrill Van Pelt" to "David Merrill," you are probably free to try to do so.

[LPC]

Connie Spam reports success with filing amended returns with the following cover letter:

Name Date
PO Box
McTown, State xxxxx

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Austin, TX 73301

Re: 2004 tax return

Dear Sir/Madam:

Attached please find my amended tax return for the year 2004.
I am filing an amended return for that year because in 2004 I, ___name___, worked in the private sector, and had no “income, profits, or wages” in the course of any “trade, employment, or business” as defined in the IRC and sections 3401 and 3121.
My 2004 tax return was originally prepared by a CPA who misinformed me concerning my status as a private sector worker.
Also, two of the private individuals, as well as a private sector company for whom I performed work in 2004, filed erroneous information returns about me for the year 2004.
The private-sector company had listed payments as “wages” as defined in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Sections 3401(a) and 3121(a). I am rebutting their claim, stating that I am a private-sector citizen [non-federal employee] working for a private-sector company [non-federal entity] as defined in 3401(c)(d).
I was not employed in a “trade or business” nor am I an “officer of a corporation.” The amounts listed as withheld on the W-2 are correct, however.
I did not hold then, nor do I hold now, any federally privileged position.
The corrections to all erroneous information returns, including two forms 1099-MISC are here included.
I am dedicated to upholding the rule of the law, and ask that you please do the same.
I expect a full and complete refund within 30 days on my 2004 return as dictated in the IRC Sections 6402(a) and 5403, and 26 CFR Sec.6402-3(a) (1) (5), and Sec.6401(b).
I declare, under penalty of perjury, that I have examined these statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true and correct.

Sincerely,

_______________________________________ ________________________
Name date

Attached: form 1040X
form 4852
corrected form 1099-MISC

To me, this letter screams "I'm frivolous, please fine me!" Anyone know what effect (if any) cover letters might have in processing returns. (I was told once that cover letters can delay the processing of returns because the return might be mistakenly diverted from the "return processing" system to the "correspondence processing" system.)

[Nikki]

As long as the initial return screener isn't totally asleep at the switch, an attached 4852 now means an immediate diversion to a more senior reviewer.

If the return plus the attached forms falls into the CtC pattern, the next step is to kind offer of a $5,000 penalty.

The cover letter is just another one of the criteria.

[fortinbras]

This is, unfortunately, a typical tax dodger case.
The would-be dodger prepares some sort of document, such as form 1040, and it first gets looked at by a low-level clerk who (mostly) checks just the bottom line and (mostly) treats it as reliable; that may get a refund fairly quickly. That fact, with the accompanying paperwork, gets trumpetted on the tax dodger website(s) as a Whopping Success.

However, weeks, months, even years later, the tax papers get looked at in detail by someone with seniority and expertise. That's when things turn ugly. Demands for repayments of erroneous refunds, deficiencies, and sometimes interest and frivolous claim penalties; and the IRS stands ready to enforce its demands. The tax dodge website(s) don't mention when that happens -- and they don't help their (former) client when it happens.