david wrote:....What or where are similar USCs and/or CFRs related to 26 USC 1 (c) which brings me within the jurisdiction of the US Gov. with regard to my income? Gov. has the authority to bring me within it's [sic] jurisdiction. Gov. has the authority to tax me, after it brings me within it's [sic] jurisdiction. As far as I can find, Gov. has chosen NOT to bring me within it's [sic] control. If you can find one, please refer me to it. With regard to Gov. and it's [sic] laws, if it is not written and recorded, it does not exist.
David, you're babbling.
If you think gov. does not have to bring me within it's [sic] jurisdiction before it taxes us individually, let me know.
No, at this point the government does not need to bring you within its "jurisdiction," David. Congress enacted a law called the Internal Revenue Code. Under that law, you are subject to the federal income tax.
Arron's jury thought it did even though the court would neither confirm or deny such a law exists.
You're babbling, David.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Famspeat, you seem to be an experienced knowledgeable standup lawyer type individual. Would you enter into and begin an arrangement with, say, Pottapaug1938, to do some legal type work for a fee for him without some form of prior written and signed contract first????? I didn't think so. But if you two didn't have that contract first and wound up in controversy, there might be two ways to resolve it. You two could try dotting each other's eyes for a while till one gets bored and the unbowed one would win. Or, being reasonably civilized individuals, the one claiming injury, probably you because you didn't get your money, could file a complaint in civil court and if the value in controversy exceeds twenty dollars (I think your time is worth more than that) you'd get a jury to decide the facts (7th Amnd.). And if you have a fact to prove your case it could be examined. But you don't. I think it would be kinda hard to convince a jury without that contract so you would probably loose.
What gives you the impression the IRS could win a similar case without producing a prior contract which could be examined???
What gives you the impression the IRS DOES NOT have to produce such a document???
My "gibberish" I suppose.
Show me or direct me to a law even implying I must enter some arrangement with the US Gov.. I didn't see you disagree with me, with regard to government, if it isn't written and recorded, it doesn't exist.
david
david wrote:
Show me or direct me to a law even implying I must enter some arrangement with the US Gov.. d
The "arrangement" you made with the U.S. is called the Constitution. There, you gave Congress the power to tax your income. Congress has done so.
The only "facts" to be determined are 1) did you engage is some income producing activity, and 2) how much income.
david wrote:Famspeat, you seem to be an experienced knowledgeable standup lawyer type individual. Would you enter into and begin an arrangement with, say, Pottapaug1938, to do some legal type work for a fee for him without some form of prior written and signed contract first????? I didn't think so. But if you two didn't have that contract first and wound up in controversy, there might be two ways to resolve it. You two could try dotting each other's eyes for a while till one gets bored and the unbowed one would win. Or, being reasonably civilized individuals, the one claiming injury, probably you because you didn't get your money, could file a complaint in civil court and if the value in controversy exceeds twenty dollars (I think your time is worth more than that) you'd get a jury to decide the facts (7th Amnd.). And if you have a fact to prove your case it could be examined. But you don't. I think it would be kinda hard to convince a jury without that contract so you would probably loose [sic].
What gives you the impression the IRS could win a similar case without producing a prior contract which could be examined???
What gives me the impression the IRS can win a tax case in court? Without a written and signed contract" with the individual whose income is being taxed?
Why, the law gives me that impression, of course.
Federal taxation is not a "contract", David.
Taxation is neither a penalty imposed on the taxpayer nor a liability which he assumes by contract.
---from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Welch v. Henry, 305 U.S. 134 (1938) (font emphasis added).
What gives me the impression the IRS does not have to produce a contract document? The law, of course.
Show me or direct me to a law even implying I must enter some arrangement with the US Gov.. I didn't see you disagree with me, with regard to government, if it isn't written and recorded, it doesn't exist.
You still have a reading comprehension problem, David. How many ways are there to say this? There is no legal requirement that there be an "arrangement" between you and the U.S. government in order you to be liable for federal income tax. The federal income tax is IMPOSED on your taxable income, whether you agree or not.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
david wrote:Famspeat, you seem to be an experienced knowledgeable standup lawyer type individual. Would you enter into and begin an arrangement with, say, Pottapaug1938, to do some legal type work for a fee for him without some form of prior written and signed contract first????? I didn't think so. But if you two didn't have that contract first and wound up in controversy, there might be two ways to resolve it. You two could try dotting each other's eyes for a while till one gets bored and the unbowed one would win. Or, being reasonably civilized individuals, the one claiming injury, probably you because you didn't get your money, could file a complaint in civil court and if the value in controversy exceeds twenty dollars (I think your time is worth more than that) you'd get a jury to decide the facts (7th Amnd.). And if you have a fact to prove your case it could be examined. But you don't. I think it would be kinda hard to convince a jury without that contract so you would probably loose.
What gives you the impression the IRS could win a similar case without producing a prior contract which could be examined???
What gives you the impression the IRS DOES NOT have to produce such a document???
My "gibberish" I suppose.
Show me or direct me to a law even implying I must enter some arrangement with the US Gov.. I didn't see you disagree with me, with regard to government, if it isn't written and recorded, it doesn't exist.
david
You're talking apples and oranges, David. In your silly scenarios, the arrangement between me and Famspear is a matter of contract. If any dispute under that contract required us to go to court to resolve it, he and I would be expected to submit sufficient facts to allow a jury to decide that one or the other of us had proven our case. However, it would be up to the judge ALONE to decide if, given the facts, the contract was valid as a matter of law. In other words, two people could sign a contract to import and sell heroin; but since the subject of the contract would be illegal, the contract would be void as a matter of law and thus unenforceable. The jury decides the facts; but the judge decides the law.
That, David, is why the IRS doesn't have to produce any law "even implying that [you] must enter some arrangement with the US Gov". It only has to cite the law under which you would be prosecuted, and the judge must decide if the facts presented in court trigger the application of that law. That is also why the mere fact of your receiving income within the United States triggers the application of the tax laws; and that is why you, as a U.S. citizen, have many other obligations which you did not affirmatively assume. If you don't like it -- TOUGH. Find some other place to go -- I hear Somalia, for example, is a place where the central government doesn't hassle people about paying taxes.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools
At this point, it is only a short step for david to start arguing that no law applies to him until he and the government has entered into an "agreement" that a law applies to him. So one can conclude that david could run stop lights and stop signs, rob banks, kidnap children, murder senior citizens and so forth without fear of arrest, trial and conviction. Since there is no evidence that david has entered into an agreement with the government that they have jurisdiction to prosecute him, he can break any of laws prohibiting traffic violations, kidnapping, bank robbery and homicide.
But if david was the subject of robbery, kidnapping or murder, I wonder how he would feel if the criminal behind those acts was not prosecuted for the very same reason david argues that he should not be prosecuted.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff
"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff
If David wants to try his goofy theory about "contracts" in a tax case, he should talk with Ms. Heather Rowe of Maine. In 2006, she filed a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), against an IRS employee, and against the Secretary of the Treasury. Ms. Rowe objected to IRS efforts to collect taxes from her. The government filed a motion to have her case thrown out.
Ms. Rowe contended that she was not subject to federal income tax because she had "never willingly and knowingly entered into any contract with the United States, the Internal Revenue Service, or the Secretary of the Treasury." Ms. Rowe asked the Court for a determination that any action by the IRS against her was void because of a lack of "jurisdiction". She demanded that the IRS remove liens and levies from her property. She demanded that the IRS stop in its actions to seize her property without a court order. She also asked for a declaration that she had no duty to file tax returns in the future.
All her arguments were rejected by the Court. The Court threw out her case against the government. See Rowe v. Internal Revenue Service, case no. 06-27-P-S, U.S. District Court for the District of Maine (May 9, 2006).
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
webhick wrote:Dead men feel nothing. Zombies feel hungry.
I hope that clears things up for you.
There is typically more than just one victim when there is a murder. I didn't mean that david actually had to be the person killed, just affected by the murder.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff
"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff
It is about as likely for David to accept anything he is told here as it would be for a winged pig to win the Olympic figure skating competition while whistling a Gershwin medly.
For that reason, I suggest that we stop answering him or arguing with him and, instead, just post factual rebuttals (for the edification of the casual visitor) to whatever coherent blather he posts.
Perhaps, after he realizes that no one is talking to him -- just about him -- he might just go away.
Taxes are the price we pay for a free society and to cover the responsibilities of the evaders
Famspear, how can I examine : Rowe v. Internal Revenue Service, case no. 06-27-P-S, U.S. District Court for the District of Maine (May 9, 2006) please ? All I have is Google Scholar and it never heard of your example.
david
david wrote:Famspear, how can I examine : Rowe v. Internal Revenue Service, case no. 06-27-P-S, U.S. District Court for the District of Maine (May 9, 2006) please ? All I have is Google Scholar and it never heard of your example.
david
That link is the "recommended decision on motion to dismiss". In other words, this case was assigned to a full-fledged judge (specifically, George Z. Singal), but that judge in turn referred the case to a magistrate judge (specifically, Margaret J. Kravchuk) for pretrial proceedings, including giving a recommendation (though not a ruling) on whether or not to dismiss the case. The magistrate judge ultimately issued this recommendation that Judge Singal dismiss the case for failure to state a claim. The magistrate judge noted the IRS attorney's observation that:
"There is no requirement for the United States, or the IRS, to get a
court order before it can assess a tax, file a lien, or begin collection
actions. The Internal Revenue Code sets forth the procedures for assessing
taxes, filing liens, and collecting taxes. Rowe has not alleged that the IRS
failed to follow any procedure mandated by statute. Rowe asserts only that
the IRS has no jurisdiction over her because she is not a citizen of the
United States. Plaintiff admits, however, that she is a citizen of Maine.
Despite Rowe’s attempt to avoid federal income tax liabilities, if Rowe is
a citizen of Maine, she is a citizen of the United States. And, even
citizenship is not a prerequisite for tax liability as the internal revenue
laws apply not only to citizens, but also to residents. See, e.g., Treas. Reg.
§ 1.1-1(a)(1) “ . . . the code imposes an income tax on the income of every
individual who is a citizen or resident of the Untied States. . . .” See
Dennis v. United States, 660 F. Supp. 870, 875 (C.D. Ill. 1987) (challenge
to taxing authority of the Untied States is “fallacious,” as it is “well
established” that it extends to all residents and citizens, citing § 1.1-
1(a)(1))"
And she also noted Rowe's response, including, among other things:
She asserts that being a citizen of the State of Maine "does not automatically
make [her] a U.S. Citizen as defined by the IRC." (Id. at 7.) In her addendum to this
motion, as applicable to her statement of claim, Rowe contends that she has "never
willingly and knowingly entered into any contract with the United States, the Internal
Revenue Service, or the Secretary of the Treasury." (Addendum at 1.)
The magistrate judge opined that the IRS's position was correct and that Rowe's was simply frivolous.
And Judge Singal ultimately accepted that recommendation and dismissed the case.
Now, if you want to see more details -- the full arguments made by the parties, the pretrial motions, etc. -- you'll have to spend a few minutes to learn how to use PACER, and you may have to be prepared to spend a very small amount of money. But given the fact that you apparently weren't prepared to spend sixty seconds with a basic search engine, I hope you'll forgive me for not going that far with my instructions just yet.
On Google Scholar (apparently your preferred search engine), you can get the same document by saying that you want to search federal courts, selecting that you only want to search in the District of Maine, and typing "rowe internal revenue service" in the search field. The only result that comes up is this one, which links to the same document.
(2006)
HEATHER ROWE, Plaintiff
v.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, DEBORAH WEAVER, and THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY Defendants.
Civil No. 06-27-P-S.
United States District Court, D. Maine.
May 9, 2006.
RECOMMENDED DECISION ON MOTION TO DISMISS
MARGARET KRAVCHUK, Magistrate Judge.
Heather Rowe filed an action against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Deborah Weaver (an IRS employee in South Portland, Maine), and the Secretary of the Treasury complaining of IRS efforts to collect taxes from her. The defendants removed the action to this Court and have moved to have the complaint dismissed (Docket No. 9). I recommend that the Court grant this motion.
Discussion
Rowe's Complaint
In her complaint Rowe indicates that in December 2004 she started to receive correspondence from the IRS regarding her 2002 tax obligations. Rowe responded by sending a letter to no less than ten agencies/offices and "requested thirteen articles of documentation" relating to the IRS's demand that she file this return. She received no response. Rowe received a notice of deficiency in April 2005. On May 5, 2005, she received from the IRS a tax return that was "fabricated with bogus and obviously erroneous information." Rowe responded by sending a letter to fifteen offices/agencies that stated that Rowe could not "agree to the fictitious dummy return." On June 21, 2005, Deborah Weaver "filed an illegal tax lien" against Rowe's property. Rowe filed an official complaint against Weaver and sent it to twelve offices. In this missive Rowe again asked for thirteen articles of documentation. Again, Rowe received no response. Rowe states that she then sent Weaver a letter requesting proof of Weaver's authority and documents and Weaver did not respond. She then sent Weaver a Freedom of Information Act request which Weaver forwarded to the IRS disclosure office.
Rowe complains that Weaver and the IRS have been utterly intransigent apropos Rowe's requests despite Rowe's many letters to many agencies. Rowe states: "The IRS has harmed me, and continues to harm with its continued harassment of me, and the people I do business with." (Compl. at 2.) The defendants, Rowe complains, have "failed to demonstrate that I am a party to any social compact or contract." (Id.) Rowe believes that the IRS has no jurisdiction over her or her property. She argues that she is "not found within the territorial limited jurisdiction of the US, its Congress or Executive branch and has no Federal tax liability or duty and thus no State of Maine income tax liability or duty and is exempt." She describes herself as a "sovereign Citizen of the State of Maine, "not a U.S. Citizen as described in 26 U.S.C. 865(g)(1)(A), a `resident of the U.S.'" (Compl. at 3.)
With respect to her remedies, Rowe wants to "be left alone as a matter of Right" (id. at 4); she wants a determination that any action or determination by the IRS is void for want of jurisdiction; she wants the IRS to remove all illegal liens and levies from her property and have it desist in attempts to seize property without a court order; she wants a recoupment of erroneously collected taxes; and a she seeks a declaration that she has no duty to file taxes in the future.
The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
The defendants' motion to dismiss argues four reasons for dismissal. First they claim that Rowe can not proceed with this suit in light of their assertion of sovereign immunity. Second, they argue that, to the extent Rowe seeks injunctive relief, she cannot maintain this action due to the Anti-Injunction Act. Third, they contend that the Court lacks jurisdiction to enter a declaratory judgment in view of the Declaratory Judgment Act. And, fourth, they urge that Rowe's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
With respect to this fourth ground for dismissal, premised on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the defendants observe:
There is no requirement for the United States, or the IRS, to get a court order before it can assess a tax, file a lien, or begin collection actions. The Internal Revenue Code sets forth the procedures for assessing taxes, filing liens, and collecting taxes. Rowe has not alleged that the IRS failed to follow any procedure mandated by statute. Rowe asserts only that the IRS has no jurisdiction over her because she is not a citizen of the United States. Plaintiff admits, however, that she is a citizen of Maine. Despite Rowe's attempt to avoid federal income tax liabilities, if Rowe is a citizen of Maine, she is a citizen of the United States. And, even citizenship is not a prerequisite for tax liability as the internal revenue laws apply not only to citizens, but also to residents. See, e.g., Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(a)(1) " . . . the code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the Untied States. . . ." See Dennis v. United States, 660 F. Supp. 870, 875 (C.D. Ill. 1987) (challenge to taxing authority of the Untied States is "fallacious," as it is "well established" that it extends to all residents and citizens, citing § 1.1-1(a)(1)).
(Mot. Dismiss at 6-7) (footnote omitted).
Rowe's Response to the Motion to Dismiss
In her response to the motion to dismiss Rowe reiterates the major thesis of her complaint: that she is not subject to taxation by the IRS. She asserts that she is barred from bringing suit in tax court because she is not a "tax payer" in that she is not subject to any Internal Revenue tax. (Resp. Mot. Dismiss at 2.) She expounds:
No remedy I seek in any way impedes the federal government, the IRS or Deborah Weaver from pursuing the collection of taxes from me, or the assessment of taxes against me through normal legal channels. It does not represent any restrictions on their legal, lawful authority to assess and collect taxes. I will pay all taxes I am liable to pay.
I am not calling into question any specific provision of the Internal Revenue Code. I do not seek a ruling under the Internal Revenue laws. The IRC is Constitutional when applied fairly, legally and lawfully.
This complaint is about the violation of my Constitutional Rights, and denial of the due process of the law, and the legal jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service and it[]s authority to institute liens, levies, and seizures outside of its jurisdiction. The Internal Revenue Service is acting outside of its jurisdiction and authority. It has acted improperly and there has been misconduct.
(Id. at 5.) She asserts that being a citizen of the State of Maine "does not automatically make [her] a U.S. Citizen as defined by the IRC." (Id. at 7.) In her addendum to this motion, as applicable to her statement of claim, Rowe contends that she has "never willingly and knowingly entered into any contract with the United States, the Internal Revenue Service, or the Secretary of the Treasury." (Addendum at 1.)
Rowe's Complaint Fails to State a Claim
Rowe concedes that there is adequate due process for United States taxpayers to challenge their federal tax obligations; her claim rises or falls on her contention that she is not a "tax payer" because of her status as a sovereign citizen. Rowe is not the first litigant to advance a claim of sovereign citizenship when faced with federal tax liability. I am not to be the first jurist to conclude that the theory is frivolous and cannot support a constitutional claim (or defense). See, e.g., United States v. Hilgeford, 7 F.3d 1340, 1342 (7th Cir. 1993) (describing such a contention as "a `shop warn' argument of the tax protester movement"); United States v. Jagim, 978 F.2d 1032, 1036 (8th Cir.1992) (describing the argument as "completely without merit, patently frivolous"); Young v. Internal Revenue Service, 596 F.Supp. 141, 149 (D.C.Ind.1984) (describing a similar theory as "preposterous").
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above I recommend that the Court GRANT the defendants' motion to dismiss (Docket No. 9) on the grounds that it does not state a claim.[1]
[1] If this Court disagrees with this conclusion the defendants would be entitled to consideration of its three other grounds for dismissal.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools
KickahaOta, thanks. Google and Scholar right now are my only resources. I had already followed your suggested procedure second post, tried several other ways, and kept coming up "can not locate". So I asked for help. Thanks for jumping in.
With regard to your first post, Rowe's assertion of "no jurisdiction over her because she was not a citizen of the US" is most definitely a ''frivolous'' argument or defense.
Also, with your suggestion of Pacer, thanks, I'll check it out. Also, one man's interpretation of ''a little bit of money'' or 'time invested' might not be the same as another's. Sometimes, when a light bulb goes off for one man and he tries to describe it to others, their concept of ''blue'' might not be the same as his so his efforts to discuss things will seem garbled , confused, gibberish. I understand and can accept that and it is up to me to learn how to communicate with you in a comprehendible manner. Pottapaug1938, thank you Very much for the information you displayed. I still need to see the wording of her 'Complaint'. I'll try to get it on my own.
Ummm, would you please re-examine my original post in ''Otto Skinner''? I think it might show I poked the bear and let it know, the bear took a swat, I got an apology, and the swat was removed. That apology might have been a mistake on the part of the IRS, I don't know. However, the letters posted at the top of this Topic do lead at least me to believe there IS something to Otto's so-called 'Loophole'. In my attempt to more fully comprehend it, I am totally dependent on the replies here to guide me, and, for all your efforts, I am thankful. There seems to be a lot of people here who don't want to see me hurt. Please keep the help up.
I'm starting to understand the gollywogs available on this site, the rest will come quickly I hope.
Thanks, david
I remember your original post, David; but my original comments about Otto Skinner still stand. Your correspondence with the IRS spoke about how you are not engaged in any Federally-licensed activity; and BASED ON THAT AND THAT ALONE, the IRS responded as it did. However, had you told the IRS that you were employed during the time period in question, and that you were paid or otherwise compensated for your work, THE IRS WOULD HAVE RESPONDED DIFFERENTLY. Their "apology" was given ONLY because you did not disclose having received any income.
You paid nothing for your own labor, and thus have no cost basis in it; therefore, when you, in effect, sell that labor to someone else and receive payment for it, you have received income and are thus liable to pay income taxes under the provisions of our tax laws.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools
David is clearly unaware that the IRS has many different kinds of employes -- with different skills and responsibilities.
There are 'front-line' staffers who review and answer letters -- according to a pre-programmed script and a predefined set of computer-generated letters. They don't do any significant analysis. They just look for key words in the incoming mail, perform a cursory examination of the writer's file, and crank out a response.
These are NOT people in the 'defined administrative procedures' heirarchy.
There is another, totally separate, set of employees known as Examiners, Revenue Agents, and Revenue Officers. These people are much more highly trained and have significantly greater responsibilities and authority. They DO NOT crank out responses to simple inquiry leters. They actually look at the facts surrounding a taxpayer's case and take appropriate action.
So far, David has only dealt with the first group of people. Should he continue to follow the various tax evasion/denier gurus, he, as will any other tax denier, will meet the second group.
This group is highly knowledgable in tax law and administrative procedures -- much more so than is David.
In addition, there is an entire, separate group of senior IRS staff who work only on tax evasion/denier issues. Eventually, David's case will be referred to them for review and action.
With any luck, David will not be referred to CI -- Criminal Investigation. Ci deals with cases that might end up with a criminal referral (jail time) to the Department of Justice.
Irrespective of David's study and reviews of Skinner's material, he -- as have too many before him -- is attempting to do serious legal analysis based on incorrect information. A simple analogy is bringing a sling-shot to a gun fight.
David is ignoring established law and is atempting to establish his own version of the law. He should check with, among others, Irwin Schiff.
Taxes are the price we pay for a free society and to cover the responsibilities of the evaders
AndyK wrote:David is clearly unaware that the IRS has many different kinds of employes -- with different skills and responsibilities.
There are 'front-line' staffers who review and answer letters -- according to a pre-programmed script and a predefined set of computer-generated letters. They don't do any significant analysis. They just look for key words in the incoming mail, perform a cursory examination of the writer's file, and crank out a response.
We've seen that particular response letter before. Someone with connection to the IRS should tell them it's clearly in error, even if the situation were as described (with the usual TP redefinition of words).
Arthur Rubin wrote:We've seen that particular response letter before. Someone with connection to the IRS should tell them it's clearly in error, even if the situation were as described (with the usual TP redefinition of words).
Cost-effectiveness; compliance with Congressional mandates for prompt esponse to taxpayers; lack of adequate, trained staff to actually read and understand letters.
The IRS is fully aware of the deficiencies in the area of non-exam correspondence with taxpayers. Unfortunately, te resources need to be applied to where they will be most effective -- Exam and Collection.
If a taxpayer wants information -- either with respect to their status or to law -- they should request it from a Representative or Senator. The elected officer's staff will just forward the request to Treasury Department, but it will receive MUCH better attention. Any Congressional request in an Exective branch is treated as "Drop everything and answer this letter."
Taxes are the price we pay for a free society and to cover the responsibilities of the evaders
david wrote: I think it might show I poked the bear and let it know, the bear took a swat, I got an apology, and the swat was removed.
I think you are just lying to yourself. You admitted that you had to remove your money from the bank because you are now subject to back up with holding. That is not an apology. That is the beginning of your sorrows.
Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!