Ex-ctc'er to CtCer's

[dude101]

If memory serves, the "Closing Notice" is not a good thing. It means that it ha gone from being a relatively friendly civil matter over to the less friendly criminal side. In other words, the IRS is giving notice that it is closing the matter on the civil side - without letting the recipient know that it is now a criminal matter.

Your memory DOESN'T serve. It is so funny! The documents were posted last night, but you just won't read them. Here is the Closing Notice Language in full (emphasis added):

CLOSING NOTICE

Thank you for providing us with additional information ahout the issue we recently wrote to you about. We are pleased to tell you that, with your help, we were able to clear up the differences between your records and your payers' records. If you sent us a payment based on our proposed changes, we will refund it to you if you owe no other taxes or have no other debts the law requires us to collect.

If you have already received a notice of deficiency, you may disregard it.
You won't need to file a petition with the United States Tax Court to reconsider the tax you owe. If you have already filed a petition, the Office of the District Counsel will contact you on the final closing of this case.

If you have questions about this notice, please write to us at the address shown above. Include your telephone number and the best time to call you if we need additional information.

Thank you for your cooperation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does that sound like they are moving the case to a criminal status to you?!@!@!?

What a joke you fear mongers are!

These closing notices go out after months of review by the best IRS has and after they have reviewed our letter(s) wherein we clearly state why our 1099's and w-2's are being amended: ie, that our reciepts are from private sector payors which have no federal relationships.

READ the documents! The IRS does and they take their sweet time and then they issue the closing notices as shown above...This is what you guys have to explain. Why is that closing notice going out after months of review and consideration...HMMMMMMMMM? SIMPLE MISTAKES THIS LATE IN THE GAME AND EVEN WHILE THEY ARE ATTACKING PETE?

Maybe this is just some dastardly way to set us all up!@ WOW! You explain it - it would seem the IRS agrees with our letters of explanation...

[Nikki]

Closing Notice letter:

Thank you for providing us with additional information about the income and deductions we recently wrote to you about. We are please to tell you that, with your help, we were able to clear up the differences between your records and your payer's records. If you sent us a payment based on our proposed changes, we will refund it to you if you owe no other taxes or have no other debts the law requires us to collect.

If you have already received a Notice of deficiency, you may disregard it. You won't need to file a petition with the United States Tax Court to reconsider the tax you owe. If you have already filed a petition, the Office of the District Counsel; will contact you on the final closing of this case.

If you have questions about this notice, please write to us at the address shown above. Include your telephone number and the best time to call you if we need additional information.

Thank you for your cooperation.

So, all is well -- until someone browses down to the correct page on the LoserHead VICTORIES listing and actually audits the account.


Then, in addition to the various civil penalties, the fraudulent information provided opens the door to criminal prosecution.

[Arthur Rubin]

It appears that, either I was correct as to the reason for the IRS closing notice (i.e., they believed the dude's correction), or they're closing the civil investigation in favor of a criminal one. You may notice that the IRS "lost" dude's first missive, and accepted the second, which was signed under penalties of perjury. Coincidence? Could be clever, could just be IRS incompetence.

They (the Department of Justice) may just go for the open-and-shut perjury conviction while they sort out which criminal tax law violation to try for. Who knows? (If anyone here does know, I wouldn't expect them to report it here.

[Arthur Rubin]

Oh, and you should have redacted the EINs of your payors. Releasing third-party tax information is another criminal offense. Releasing your own SSN would be just stupid.

[dude101]

So, all is well -- until someone browses down to the correct page on the LoserHead VICTORIES listing and actually audits the account.

These documents WERE AUDITED you loons! Read the correspondence. It reflects a non-physical audit! They asked for information, I supplied it. My reply was as clear as it could be!
I signed all responses "under penalty of perjury"...

If the service could have legaly enforced their claim they would have at that time, durring the audit process. They took over six months, ADUITING my information!

You guys can play with yourselves over here. Keep getting it wrong on purpose.

[Nikki]

P.S.

The letter in question is generated by the Automated Under-Reporter system.

The reviews of AUR information are performed by relatively low-level clerks. The serious Revenue Officers and Revenue Agents don't come into play until much later in the cycle.

Keep us posted Dud.1

[dude101]

P.S.
The letter in question is generated by the Automated Under-Reporter system.

The reviews of AUR information are performed by relatively low-level clerks. The serious Revenue Officers and Revenue Agents don't come into play until much later in the cycle.

Keep us posted Dud.1

Again - you are wrong.

From the IRS Proceedure Manual concerning AUR:

18. Does the system (AUR) ensure "due process" by allowing affected parties to respond to any negative determination, prior to final action?
Since negative determinations are not processed by the system, due process procedures are not applicable. Due process is afforded to all taypayers if their case is selected for review before final determinations are made, but that happens within another system.

[Dezcad]

So, all is well -- until someone browses down to the correct page on the LoserHead VICTORIES listing and actually audits the account.

These documents WERE AUDITED you loons! Read the correspondence. It reflects a non-physical audit! They asked for information, I supplied it. My reply was as clear as it could be!
I signed all responses "under penalty of perjury"...

If the service could have legaly enforced their claim they would have at that time, durring the audit process. They took over six months, ADUITING my information!

You guys can play with yourselves over here. Keep getting it wrong on purpose.

Perhaps you should speak with Sharon K. Artman of Largo, Fla.; Michael J. Dowling of San Diego; Joy M. Ferguson of Henderson, Nev.; Melvin L. Gerstenkorn of Topeka, Kan.; Larry B. Golson and Debra G. Golson of Montgomery, Ala.; and James A. Spitzer of Winter Park, Fla. about the finality of certain notices and refunds.

[LPC]

P.S.
The letter in question is generated by the Automated Under-Reporter system.

The reviews of AUR information are performed by relatively low-level clerks. The serious Revenue Officers and Revenue Agents don't come into play until much later in the cycle.

Keep us posted Dud.1

Again - you are wrong.

From the IRS Proceedure Manual concerning AUR:

18. Does the system (AUR) ensure "due process" by allowing affected parties to respond to any negative determination, prior to final action?
Since negative determinations are not processed by the system, due process procedures are not applicable. Due process is afforded to all taypayers if their case is selected for review before final determinations are made, but that happens within another system.

Sorry, Dud, but what you have quoted is consistent with what Nikki wrote.

[The Operative]

Dude,

Closing notices do not mean that your return for that year cannot be looked at again or investigated further. The only thing that precludes the IRS from further investigation is a CLOSING AGREEMENT which is recorded on certain forms and the CP-2005 is not one of them. As an example of a person who received a closing notice and later was determined to have a deficiency for that same year, see Ellis v. CIR, which you can read at http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/ ... CM.WPD.pdf

The closing notice issued by respondent’s Ogden Service Center did not constitute a closing agreement pursuant to section 7121. Rather, it merely closed the Ogden Service Center’s inquiry into the discrepancies between the gross receipts reported on petitioner’s 2001 tax return and the Forms 1099 respondent received from JPI. Although petitioner credibly contends that he believed that 2001 was closed from further examination when he received the closing notice, such a unilateral belief on his part does not satisfy the requirements of section 7121. See Urbano v. Commissioner, supra. Therefore, the Court finds that petitioner’s 2001 tax year remained open for examination after he received respondent’s Ogden Service Center’s closing notice.

Now that I have shown your closing notice doesn't mean what you think it means, do you want to try again?

[jkeeb]

I worked in the AUR section in Atlanta.

The closing notice received probably means the idiot in UR accepted the explanation given regarding the CP 2000. The instructions the clerks are given (and the clerks can be GS-4 certifiable idiots) are if the document is disputed, then they are to write the payer; wait 30 days, and if no further information is received, close the case. A referral to exam would generally not generate a closing notice.

[ASITStands]

Dude,

Closing notices do not mean that your return for that year cannot be looked at again or investigated further. The only thing that precludes the IRS from further investigation is a CLOSING AGREEMENT which is recorded on certain forms and the CP-2005 is not one of them. As an example of a person who received a closing notice and later was determined to have a deficiency for that same year, see Ellis v. CIR, which you can read at http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/ ... CM.WPD.pdf

The closing notice issued by respondent’s Ogden Service Center did not constitute a closing agreement pursuant to section 7121. Rather, it merely closed the Ogden Service Center’s inquiry into the discrepancies between the gross receipts reported on petitioner’s 2001 tax return and the Forms 1099 respondent received from JPI. Although petitioner credibly contends that he believed that 2001 was closed from further examination when he received the closing notice, such a unilateral belief on his part does not satisfy the requirements of section 7121. See Urbano v. Commissioner, supra. Therefore, the Court finds that petitioner’s 2001 tax year remained open for examination after he received respondent’s Ogden Service Center’s closing notice.

Now that I have shown your closing notice doesn't mean what you think it means, do you want to try again?

Hit the nail on the head!

The AUR Unit is not the same as the Examination Division.

And, contrary to the protestations of 'dude101,' the case is not over until it's actually over. There are many ways for it to be reopened. My guess would be an Examination next then potentially a Collection Investigation [i.e., summons] if MacNeilage is uncooperative.

Last, but not least, would be a Criminal Investigation. That might start with false and fraudulent returns under IRC 7206(1) and end with evasion under IRC 7201 if uncooperative.

However, I'd not predict any of the latter until after a conviction in Hendrickson. And, I'd suggest Scott would long since have discovered it easier to simply cooperate with Collections. Criminal Investigations usually cover more than one year and take time.

Investigation is conducted by CID, and after a decision is made to prosecute, a referral is made to the Department of Justice. It's then that an information or indictment is issued.

Scott:

You need to realize that your case is not actually closed [for the reasons given above].

If and when it's reopened, you should make every attempt to cooperate with Examinations and later Collections. Failing to do so will only lead to greater problems in the future.

The plain truth of the matter is the 'Closing Notice' you received is not the end.

Wish you well!

EDIT: Referrals by CID do not always lead to prosecution.

There is still an opportunity to avoid prosecution by cooperating with the DOJ, but generally, it's not avoided, and just as generally, it's because the target is uncooperative.

Somewhere we've discussed the fact the great majority of referrals result in prosecution.

The best time to cooperate is long before CID gets involved.

[Famspear]

The losthorizons web site appears to be down again (Tues Nov 18, 2008, at 2:54 pm central time).

EDIT: Site is back up.

[Gregg]

It appears that, either I was correct as to the reason for the IRS closing notice (i.e., they believed the dude's correction), or they're closing the civil investigation in favor of a criminal one. You may notice that the IRS "lost" dude's first missive, and accepted the second, which was signed under penalties of perjury. Coincidence? Could be clever, could just be IRS incompetence.

They (the Department of Justice) may just go for the open-and-shut perjury conviction while they sort out which criminal tax law violation to try for. Who knows? (If anyone here does know, I wouldn't expect them to report it here.

Actualy I think I know what happened, and it can be either good or bad news for you. When you dispute a W2 or a 1099 the IRS is required to verify it with the issuer, I believe that if they do not hear back from the issuer within a set time they are required to accept your argument. Fine as far as it goes, you got away with it for one year....BUT next year you try the same thing, and this time the employers notices the letter from the IRS, and because it's typical of tax protestors to also be self rightouts jerks, especailly when they get a mulligen, you have spent the last 8 months arguing with the poor clerk in HR to get your W4 changed to exempt, so now when the IRS letter arrives, it gets handled and maybe you don't get away with it next year, maybe you do, but if you don't, PERHAPS someone looks back at the gimme you got last year, and decideds that you did beat them on the taxes, you also perjured yourself to do it, so they do more than send a letter to your employer, they send an agent out to ask around, get the records in person, oh yeah, the HR clerk really thinks you're a pain in the ass so she's real cooperative...and then you find out a year late (with a lot higher penalties etc...) how much you got away with that first year.....

good luck with that

[Gregg]

So, all is well -- until someone browses down to the correct page on the LoserHead VICTORIES listing and actually audits the account.

These documents WERE AUDITED you loons! Read the correspondence. It reflects a non-physical audit! They asked for information, I supplied it. My reply was as clear as it could be!
I signed all responses "under penalty of perjury"...

If the service could have legaly enforced their claim they would have at that time, durring the audit process. They took over six months, ADUITING my information!

You guys can play with yourselves over here. Keep getting it wrong on purpose.

You keep on believeing that Sparky, you gotta believe!

Oh, say "Hi" to Ed: "family retard" Brown when you see him

[Gregg]

I worked in the AUR section in Atlanta.

The closing notice received probably means the idiot in UR accepted the explanation given regarding the CP 2000. The instructions the clerks are given (and the clerks can be GS-4 certifiable idiots) are if the document is disputed, then they are to write the payer; wait 30 days, and if no further information is received, close the case. A referral to exam would generally not generate a closing notice.

I didn't read this until after my prior post.....now just to be sure, is my above scenario in your opinion, plausable?

[ASITStands]

Since this thread is beginning to reach the "magic" number, I'll post here.

Notice how Weston White never showed up at Quatloos to straighten us out on our theories? And, notice, how both Patrick Mooney and Scott MacNeilage have made themselves scarce?

Are we scaring them off like 'Demosthenes' suggested? Or is it something else?

We didn't use sarcasm or snide remarks this time but reasoned responses. Hmm.

Must have made too much sense.

[The Operative]

Since this thread is beginning to reach the "magic" number, I'll post here.

Notice how Weston White never showed up at Quatloos to straighten us out on our theories? And, notice, how both Patrick Mooney and Scott MacNeilage have made themselves scarce?

Are we scaring them off like 'Demosthenes' suggested? Or is it something else?

We didn't use sarcasm or snide remarks this time but reasoned responses. Hmm.

Must have made too much sense.

IMO, and I may be wrong, I do not believe Demo is too worried about hard core deniers like SubVet, Mooney, and a few others. I think she is more interested in the borderline tax protester who may have followed some guru in the past and is now questioning whether they did the right thing. Or, the possible tax protester who has read some guru's book or website and has some questions on whether what they read is correct or is just wrong.

Those types of people may come here and make a post similar to this one. Those are the posts that should initially be greeted with polite guidance on the matter with attempts to answer their questions.

In contrast, people like Dude101, which in his very first post called everyone here a coward, are very hard to be polite too. However, a borderline TP that may read the posts in response to Dude101 may be frightened away from asking the questions that will stop them from becoming a TP. That is the overall problem.

[ASITStands]

It's revealing that neither Weston White, Patrick Mooney or Scott MacNeilage have posted since we handed them their heads in a basket. Weston White is too chicken to appear!

[ Oops! Maybe I shouldn't have used the word 'chicken,' but I'm not changing it. ]

Patrick Mooney made a valiant attempt to make sense, but I guess he decided it wasn't worth his time to engage anyone in reasoned debate, and Scott MacNeilage has disappeared.

Other than White, who can run his mouth on Lost Horizons, the others are very quiet.

I'm looking at the rationale or psychology behind their silence. I'm applauding them for reserving silence in light of some of the things revealed in their exchange here, but I was hoping we'd get a little more enlightenment on the table while they were here.

Truly! I wish them well if a bit of common sense has hit their psyche. There's always hope.

[LOBO]

It seems that NOW scotty is interested in case law to support his preconceived notion...

I was over at Quatloos challenging the angry fearmongering they use to support their gravy train of legal chaos, and I was even able to point out that many of the cases they use to support their arguements deal with Federal or quasi-Federal issues. I even got one of them to actually consider the facts of these cases and eqivicate a bit over them.

HOWEVER ...
it occurred to me that they have one point that WE NEED TO ADDRESS TO HELP OURSELVES:

BETTER KNOWLEDGE OF CASE LAW

I, for instance, have heard many here say that various cases support our work, but other than the material on PETE's site no one has posted a list of cases we can research as relevant and supportive.

(unless I've missed it, and if I have, please post the links under a clear subject heading)

PLEASE if any of you have such info it would be great just to lay it out there for me and others because I feel PETE's situation should motivate all of us to dot our I's and cross our T's!!!!

Thanks and PEACE!

scott

Any guesses on which cases he's going to misread and cite over here?