What law does this?

[Gregg]

I guess this is all my fault. Somewhere else I posited that no one could be as truly stupid as Harvester, and that he was just a troll. Looks like someone just had to prove me wrong.

Welcome to Quatloos, looser.

Oh, and when we call you "maroon" we're not misspelling moron, it's a local term we have just for people like you.

[26USCisafraud]

The silence is DEAFENING!

[The Operative]

Wronng again, Batman!

Oh, what's the matter "26"? Not as easy as it looked, is it?

All you high-priced liaryers conveniently overlook thing when you need to continue your fraudulent behaviour.

Scoll down to section 3445 of that very same P.L. that directs the commissioner to "eliminate or substantially MODIFY" the structure of the IRS. Had he paid attention, he would have realized he needed to modify rather than eliminate the districts. The requirement to do so in in the very same law! A district director's gotta sign levies Idiots!

As I said, you cannot read.

A principal residence is not exempt from levy if a U.S. district court judge or magistrate approves the levy; similarly, trade or business assets are not exempt from levy if an IRS district director or assistant district director personally approves the levy or where collection is in jeopardy, but only after a determination that the taxpayer's other assets are insufficient to satisfy the liability

BTW, under the new organization, authority to levy has been delegated to various IRS employees holding certain positions under the new structure.

[The Operative]

The silence is DEAFENING!

I think you have a problem with your brain being missing. You are depriving some village of its idiot.

[Gregg]

The silence is DEAFENING!

Not so much silence as quiet contempt and maybe a little pity.

[26USCisafraud]

EDIT: Here's what the statute actually says (in relevant part):

....Property (other than a principal residence) described in subsection (a)(13)(B) shall not be exempt from levy if--

(A) a district director or assistant district director of the Internal Revenue Service personally approves (in writing) the levy of such property.....

--Internal Revenue Code section 6334(e)(2), as amended by section 3445(b) of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-206, 112 Stat. 685, 762-763 (July 22, 1998).[/quote]
Under penalty of perjury, section 6065, right?

[Famspear]

Under penalty of perjury, section 6065, right?

I think what you meant to say was: "Is a notice of intent to levy required to be signed under penalty of perjury?"

No. Section 6065 does not require that.

And that has nothing to do with the nonsense you've already written. Please do not wander off into other, unrelated nonsense.



EDIT: Or maybe you meant to ask, "Under section 6065, is the levy itself required to be authorized by a statement made under penalty of perjury?"

The answer to that would also be no.

[The Observer]

And then there are these, which name and show the 33 IRS districts:

Sorry, but that list and the maps are woefully out of date. The IRS no longer has 33 "districts" but now has split up their organization to align with the different areas of tax administration such as exempt organizations, large business, small business and wage earners. Each of those operating divisions in turn divide the country up into areas and territories depending on the size of their staffs and the requirements of the particular taxpayer population.

But that doesn't mean that our new troll is any less wrong than he originally was. It is very clear from the statutes, regulations and delegations that the IRS has the authority and mandate to determine how they decide to administer the taxation of the country. usc26isfraud is hung up on "magic" words.

[The Observer]

EDIT: Here's what the statute actually says (in relevant part):

....Property (other than a principal residence) described in subsection (a)(13)(B) shall not be exempt from levy if--

(A) a district director or assistant district director of the Internal Revenue Service personally approves (in writing) the levy of such property.....

--Internal Revenue Code section 6334(e)(2), as amended by section 3445(b) of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-206, 112 Stat. 685, 762-763 (July 22, 1998).

Under penalty of perjury, section 6065, right?[/quote]

And if you read very carefully, the only levy that the director must sign must be for property that is described under (e)(2) as business assets that are defined as being tools of the trade. In other words, if the IRS wants to seize a painter's brushes, the revenue officer needs to get the director's signature on the levy paperwork. If the revenue officer wants to seize the painter's personal vehicle, he or she does not need the director's signature.

[26USCisafraud]

EDIT: Here's what the statute actually says (in relevant part):

....Property (other than a principal residence) described in subsection (a)(13)(B) shall not be exempt from levy if--

(A) a district director or assistant district director of the Internal Revenue Service personally approves (in writing) the levy of such property.....

--Internal Revenue Code section 6334(e)(2), as amended by section 3445(b) of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-206, 112 Stat. 685, 762-763 (July 22, 1998).

Under penalty of perjury, section 6065, right?

And if you read very carefully, the only levy that the director must sign must be for property that is described under (e)(2) as business assets that are defined as being tools of the trade. In other words, if the IRS wants to seize a painter's brushes, the revenue officer needs to get the director's signature on the levy paperwork. If the revenue officer wants to seize the painter's personal vehicle, he or she does not need the director's signature.[/quote]

So you admit that a district director is needed....hmmm. Hard to do since they don't exist anymore. You guys are a bunch of fraudsters sucking off the government teat. No wonder the country's going down the crapola hola with legal bozos like yourselves fattening your own wallets because you've made a pact with the devil and continue to make these specious arguments protecting the fraud.

How much was spent on the wonderful new IRS organization that doesn't even exist anymore? (Hint: T.O. 150-02) It's all a big fraud!

The next thing I know is that some yahoo on this board is going to tell me that the IRS was created by statute.

Anybody want to make a small wager on that one?

[26USCisafraud]

Under penalty of perjury, section 6065, right?

I think what you meant to say was: "Is a notice of intent to levy required to be signed under penalty of perjury?"

No. Section 6065 does not require that.

And that has nothing to do with the nonsense you've already written. Please do not wander off into other, unrelated nonsense.



EDIT: Or maybe you meant to ask, "Under section 6065, is the levy itself required to be authorized by a statement made under penalty of perjury?"


The answer to that would also be no.

You better read 6065 again fambozo. Is a levy a DOCUMENT made under ANY provision of the internal revenue laws or regulations? yUp

[26USCisafraud]

And then there are these, which name and show the 33 IRS districts:

Sorry, but that list and the maps are woefully out of date. The IRS no longer has 33 "districts" but now has split up their organization to align with the different areas of tax administration such as exempt organizations, large business, small business and wage earners. Each of those operating divisions in turn divide the country up into areas and territories depending on the size of their staffs and the requirements of the particular taxpayer population.

But that doesn't mean that our new troll is any less wrong than he originally was. It is very clear from the statutes, regulations and delegations that the IRS has the authority and mandate to determine how they decide to administer the taxation of the country. usc26isfraud is hung up on "magic" words.

Hey blindobserver, it means I am more correct than before because you just made a stupid and ignorant statement, just like every other statement propping up this fraud. The 'magic' words are called Public Law.

So now you are spouting falsehoods like the IRS is divided up into all these 'new' divisions, areas and territories. Better check again, blindguy.


The IRS is operating outside the law, ie., OUTLAWS!

[Pottapaug1938]

[quote="26USCisafraud]

All you high-priced liaryers conveniently overlook thing when you need to continue your fraudulent behaviour.

Scoll down to section 3445 of that very same P.L. that directs the commissioner to "eliminate or substantially MODIFY" the structure of the IRS. Had he paid attention, he would have realized he needed to modify rather than eliminate the districts. The requirement to do so in in the very same law! A district director's gotta sign levies Idiots![/quote]

You are so dumb you make Van Pelt and Harvester look smart -- and that's Hall of Fame dumb -- maybe even gets you onto the medalist's podium. You yourself supplied the statutory clause which directs the commissioner to eliminate OR modify the districts. In plain English, he can eliminate the districts, OR he can modify them. He chose Door #1.

[26USCisafraud]

Perhaps troll-du-jour could consider looking at delegation orders?

o.k. nIKKI bABY, i'M fROM mIssOURI. SHOw ME WHAT to lOOk AT! Got anything GOOD? Show ME thosE delEGAtion orderS for POSitions that don't exist!

[The Operative]

So you admit that a district director is needed....hmmm. Hard to do since they don't exist anymore.

I am fairly certain that 'The Observer' was pointing out that a director's signature was only needed in the event that exempt business or trade property needed to be seized. The same section does provide an alternative to a director's signature, therefore a district director is NOT needed.

You guys are a bunch of fraudsters sucking off the government teat. No wonder the country's going down the crapola hola with legal bozos like yourselves fattening your own wallets because you've made a pact with the devil and continue to make these specious arguments protecting the fraud.

Typical moron jumping to conclusions. I do not work for the IRS. I do not complete tax returns for others. I do not advise people on their tax issues. I do not receive any compensation that is related in any way to the administration or operation of the tax laws. BTW, the only one making specious arguments here is you.

How much was spent on the wonderful new IRS organization that doesn't even exist anymore? (Hint: T.O. 150-02) It's all a big fraud!

Blah, blah, blah. I think you weren't burdened with an overabundance of schooling.

The next thing I know is that some yahoo on this board is going to tell me that the IRS was created by statute.

Anybody want to make a small wager on that one?

The Office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was created by statute long ago. The Commissioner was given the power to hire as many people as he/she deemed necessary for the administration and enforcement of the Internal Revenue laws.

[Nikki]

Let's assume, for the sake of argument that the troll of the day is correct.

First, why hasn't a single Tax or District court case raised this issue and won? Is troll of the day some kind of prescient legal genius?

Second, if there were any validity to its exposing this massive loophole in the IRS' authority and procedures, why hasn't Congress taken fifteen minutes away from honoring classic car collectors and corrected this oversight as they regularly do with all other errors in the tax laws?

Answer: We have reached reductio ad absurbidum --- troll's allegations are incorrect.

Perhaps it should add a new type of razor to its shaving kit --- the single blade type manufactured by Occam, Inc.

[26USCisafraud]

[

So he violated 6091, 7621 and a host of other CFR regs by eliminating the district director position along with the internal revenue districts and the service center serving the districts

Checkmate!

[The Operative]

And then there are these, which name and show the 33 IRS districts:

Sorry, but that list and the maps are woefully out of date. The IRS no longer has 33 "districts" but now has split up their organization to align with the different areas of tax administration such as exempt organizations, large business, small business and wage earners. Each of those operating divisions in turn divide the country up into areas and territories depending on the size of their staffs and the requirements of the particular taxpayer population.

But that doesn't mean that our new troll is any less wrong than he originally was. It is very clear from the statutes, regulations and delegations that the IRS has the authority and mandate to determine how they decide to administer the taxation of the country. usc26isfraud is hung up on "magic" words.

Hey blindobserver, it means I am more correct than before because you just made a stupid and ignorant statement, just like every other statement propping up this fraud. The 'magic' words are called Public Law.

So now you are spouting falsehoods like the IRS is divided up into all these 'new' divisions, areas and territories. Better check again, blindguy.

The IRS is operating outside the law, ie., OUTLAWS!

Yes, the IRS is subject to and guided by the Internal Revenue laws. The problem here is that YOU do not understand those laws. You THINK you do, but you are mistaken because you do not know how to properly read statutes and you have a reading comprehension problem.

[Pottapaug1938]

[

So he violated 6091, 7621 and a host of other CFR regs by eliminating the district director position along with the internal revenue districts and the service center serving the districts

Checkmate!

Only it's against you, Moron. He had the power to eliminate, as you yourself pointed out. As for the rest of your ravings, they are not worth any more of my time to rebut -- for one thing, you are incapable of understanding any such rebutals, or of forming a coherent response to them.

You really ought to stop sneaking into the nurses' station and using their computers, or else they'll take you to the Time Out room and give you some of that "special juice", after they put you into the Special Jacket.

[26USCisafraud]

Let's assume, for the sake of argument that the troll of the day is correct.

First, why hasn't a single Tax or District court case raised this issue and won? Is troll of the day some kind of prescient legal genius?

Second, if there were any validity to its exposing this massive loophole in the IRS' authority and procedures, why hasn't Congress taken fifteen minutes away from honoring classic car collectors and corrected this oversight as they regularly do with all other errors in the tax laws?

Answer: We have reached reductio ad absurbidum --- troll's allegations are incorrect.

Perhaps it should add a new type of razor to its shaving kit --- the single blade type manufactured by Occam, Inc.

I'll answer that. Because Congress doesn't give a damn about doing what's right, only what gets votes. Why do you think that haven't enforced the immigration laws for 50 years?

Vote a few of the bums out, then they get the message. When the teaparties spread the truth about the fraud of Title 26, congress might just wake up and get rid of this slavemaker.

Of course, the cottage industry built up around the fraud, the H&R Blocks, Liberty tax service, tax lairyers, etc, will have to find another source of corruption.