Mystery of the Week....

[LPC]

Boycott Bank of America!

To all of you out there - if you currently have an account with BOA, close it and find someplace else. You can guess why...

[The Observer]

An IRS levy found SubVet's account at Bank of America and the bank refused to listen to his demand to not turn the money over to the IRS?

[Joe Dirt]

AND, the CSR was FLIPPANT...

Submarine Veteran
-



Joined: 16 Oct 2007
Posts: 355
Location: On the land within the Florida Republic
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 6:56 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not only that, the attitude is flippant. When you have a representative of a bank, a service agency, refuse to give you a last name and tell you that their lawyers would love to have something to do, you really know you've got a friend at BOA...

[The Observer]

When you have a representative of a bank, a service agency, refuse to give you a last name and tell you that their lawyers would love to have something to do,

Ok, add the issue of threatening to sue the bank for turning over funds to the IRS.

[Brandybuck]

My beef with BoA is that they begged for a government bailout. Along with Citi they are two banks I will not do business with. Other banks did take bailout money as well, and some had it forced on them after they said "no", but only BoA and Citi crowded to the front of the line waving their hands and screaming "me! me!"

[Gregg]

Sounds to me like BOA's boycott of SubVet is having more of it's intended effect than SubVet's boycott on BOA....

[Famspear]

Where did that unfit for service sea lawyer wannabe get this idiotic, hair-brained idea?

If he served on a U.S. Navy submarine, he was fit for service at one time, of course -- perhaps a long time ago. I would have to give him credit for having served, no matter how wackadoosterish he has now become.

My nephew is in the Navy's submarine service, and he just got his "dolphins":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_Warfare_insignia

He serves on an Ohio-class nuclear sub, a boomer, and I am pretty doggone proud of him. (Sorry for the off-topic commentary; for me it's a big deal.)

[Arthur Rubin]

He serves on an Ohio-class nuclear sub, a boomer, and I am pretty doggone proud of him. (Sorry for the off-topic commentary; for me it's a big deal.)

Quite all right. It serves as a reminder that some (perhaps even most) Submarine Veterans haven't -- I was going to write, "gone off the deep end", but that seems in bad taste, even for Quatloos.

[The Observer]

Where did that unfit for service sea lawyer wannabe get this idiotic, hair-brained idea?

The same place he got the great idea that he could stop paying taxes and that the IRS wouldn't be able to touch him. The same place that he got the idea that practical financial planning is leaving your assets out in the open where the IRS could find them.

[Famspear]

He serves on an Ohio-class nuclear sub, a boomer, and I am pretty doggone proud of him. (Sorry for the off-topic commentary; for me it's a big deal.)

Quite all right. It serves as a reminder that some (perhaps even most) Submarine Veterans haven't -- I was going to write, "gone off the deep end", but that seems in bad taste, even for Quatloos.

It's a deep subject.....

[LPC]

They'll steal your money and give it to anyone that signs a form on IRS letterhead - No Warrant of Distraint required (per the LAW).

Why does SubVet think a Warrant of Distraint has to be presented in order for the IRS to levy his account?

There's some old law on this subject, but the bottom line is that (a) a "warrant of distraint" is NOT required under the 1954/1986 Internal Revenue Code, and (b) even when a "warrant of distraint" was required by the 1939 Code, it was a warrant signed by an IRS official and not a judge.

From the Tax Protester FAQ:

Some tax protesters also think that there is support [for the idea that a "notice of levy" is not enough to effect a valid levy] in a 1947 Circuit Court decision, in which the court said:

“Nothing alleged to have been done amounts to a levy, which requires that the property be brought into a legal custody through seizure, actually or constructive... Levy is not effected by mere notice.”

United States v. O’Dell, 160 F.2d 304, 307 (6th Cir. 1947).

“Constructive seizure” is exactly what a notice of levy is intended to achieve, but the O’Dell court apparently decided that the government hadn’t served enough documents, stating:

“Section 3692 [of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939] does not prescribe any procedure for accomplishing a levy upon a bank account. The method followed in the cases is that of issuing warrants of distraint, making the bank a party, and serving with the notice of levy copy of the warrants of distraint and notice of lien. [citations omitted] No warrants of distraint were issued here.”

So the O’Dell court believed that a levy could be made by serving a “notice of levy” along with a “warrant of distraint” and “notice of lien,” and the problem was that the IRS had omitted the “warrant of distraint.” (The issuance of warrants by the officers of the IRS—and not any court—was authorized by section 3692 of the 1939 Code, which stated that “the collector may levy, or by warrant may authorize a deputy collector to levy, upon all property and rights to property....”) But the O’Dell case was decided under the tax code enacted in 1939, and at least one other Circuit Court disagreed that a “warrant of distraint” was needed. United States v. Eiland, 224 F. 2d 118, 121 (4th Cir. 1955). The issue became an historical footnote when Congress enacted the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, because the word “warrant” was not included in section 6331 (which is the successor to section 3692 of the 1939 Code, and authorizes the IRS to levy on property). Under the 1954 code, courts have unanimously agreed that service of a “notice of levy” is sufficient to make a levy and that the holding of the O’Dell decision is no longer valid.

“In their complaint, the plaintiffs cite to the Internal Revenue Code and the supporting regulations from 1844 (14 STAT.107), 1939 (26 U.S.C. section 3692) and 1954 (1954 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News 4555, House Rep. No. 1337). Each of these laws allows a ‘collector’ to levy on property to collect taxes, but requires that the ‘collector’ authorize BY WARRANT a deputy collector to levy. They also cite a number of cases which held that a warrant of distraint is a procedural requirement. All of the cases were decided by 1957.

“The law has changed. 26 U.S.C. section 3692 has been repealed and replaced by 26 U.S.C. section 6331, which authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to collect unpaid taxes by levy upon all property and right to property belonging to the taxpayer. 26 U.S.C. section 6331(a). The term levy includes ‘the power of distraint and seizure by any means.’ 26 U.S.C. section 6331(b). Neither the statute nor the implementing regulations at 26 C.F.R. section 301.6331 require that a warrant of distraint be obtained, and there is no further distinction between the collector (now district director) and a deputy collector (now revenue officer).”

Leady v. United States, 74 AFTR2d ¶94-5225, 94 TNT 156-36, No. 92-0094-C (U.S.D.C. N.D. W.Va. 7/15/1994) (footnote omitted).

See also, Rosenblum v. United States, 300 F.2d 843 (1st Cir. 1962); United States v. Manufacturers National Bank, 198 F.Supp. 157 (N.D. N.Y. 1961); Boyajin v. United States, 825 F. Supp. 714 (E.D. Pa. 1993).

[LPC]

Not only that, the attitude is flippant. When you have a representative of a bank, a service agency, refuse to give you a last name and tell you that their lawyers would love to have something to do, you really know you've got a friend at BOA...

That sounds like a representative with some experience, and some sense.

[Gregg]

I'd bet real money SubVet was a malingerer, goldbricker, sea lawyer and the closest he got to the silent service was serving on a sub tender.

sucker bet

[grixit]

The Savage Sub-Mariner uses his unique powers to ignore what ordinary folk would feel as a splash of cold water.

[notorial dissent]

What impresses / worries me is that BOA has lowered their account requirement standards to the point that they would let Subvet even have an account to begin with, and I am equally impressed that he had anything in an account that the IRS could take.

I suspect that what he also neglects to mention is that he was his usual charming self to whoever he was threatening on the phone, and they simply weren’t impressed / having any at the time and told him what he could do with his toothless threats. If they are working in the area that deals with levies, they know the law quite well and know he is full of bilge.

[Gregg]

I recall hearing him say he draws a Navy Pension, and I think that you can no longer receive those as a check, you have to have a bank for them to be direct deposited to. There was also not long ago a discussion of banking etc... and setting up accounts with no SSAN, and wouldn't swear to it, but I think he may have been telling everyone how great it was that you could do this at BOA

[Gregg]

Well, I found one thread that it looks like bubblehead didn't have much to do with choosing BOA, although I am astounded and the number of "regular" posters over there I noticed who have been banned, and I only when back to December....free speech, Stalin style

[Judge Roy Bean]

My beef with BoA is that they begged for a government bailout. Along with Citi they are two banks I will not do business with. Other banks did take bailout money as well, and some had it forced on them after they said "no", but only BoA and Citi crowded to the front of the line waving their hands and screaming "me! me!"

Not to get too far off topic, but any company that would buy something like Countrywide should be shunned.

[Lambkin]

I'd bet real money SubVet was a malingerer, goldbricker, sea lawyer and the closest he got to the silent service was serving on a sub tender.

There are fools in every branch of the service, just like anywhere else in life, and I wouldn't be surprised either way. It makes no difference whether he is the real deal or not: he is making a complete ass of himself. If he wasn't a sea-lawyer in the service, he's certainly making up for lost time. Maybe being locked in a box with little air for extended periods has something to do with his idiocy.

[Lambkin]

My beef with BoA is that they begged for a government bailout. Along with Citi they are two banks I will not do business with. Other banks did take bailout money as well, and some had it forced on them after they said "no", but only BoA and Citi crowded to the front of the line waving their hands and screaming "me! me!"

How do you expect a modern capitalist company to behave? Are they supposed to turn down a hand-out that would help them survive? There were strings attached so I'm not surprised that companies that didn't require the bail-out objected and/or paid it back promptly. But for BofA and Citi, what were they going to do? Give up and let competitors eat their lunch when an advantage is being handed out by the government? No, at each moment in time when they have to make a decision, they decide to do whatever they think will keep the business going. Their principles relate to their paychecks and shareholders, not to some kind of honor code which would lead them to act against immediate self-interest.