FAQ Update

A collection of old posts from all forums. No new threads or new posts in old threads allowed. For archive use only.
Nikki

Re: FAQ Update

Post by Nikki »

:shock:

I wonder how you reconcile your concept of "one large paper tiger they have no authority for anything, concerning the individual" with the undeniable ability to levy wages and salaries, sieze savings, and sell property to collect taxes.

That sounds like a significant number of teeth to me.
Weston White

Re: FAQ Update

Post by Weston White »

Nikki wrote::shock:

I wonder how you reconcile your concept of "one large paper tiger they have no authority for anything, concerning the individual" with the undeniable ability to levy wages and salaries, sieze savings, and sell property to collect taxes.

That sounds like a significant number of teeth to me.
Nope, Nope, Nope all Title 27. It is all very, very limited. 6331 - 27 Part 70
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: FAQ Update

Post by LPC »

Weston White wrote:
Nikki wrote::shock:

I wonder how you reconcile your concept of "one large paper tiger they have no authority for anything, concerning the individual" with the undeniable ability to levy wages and salaries, sieze savings, and sell property to collect taxes.

That sounds like a significant number of teeth to me.
Nope, Nope, Nope all Title 27. It is all very, very limited. 6331 - 27 Part 70
Why don't you answer Nikki's question?

You claim that the IRS is "paper," Nikki confronts you with the reality of actual levies and actual seizures, and you respond with references to paper.

It is *YOU* and Peter Hendrickson that are the "paper tigers" and not the IRS, because everything you say and do is all theory and words, and without any substance or any reality.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
Nikki

Re: FAQ Update

Post by Nikki »

Riiiight. Title 27 :roll: And 26USC means absolutely nothing at all.

Weston, keep up your mental masturbation. It'll keep you occupied until the collection actions get serious and you end up out on the street.

You, Pete, and all your CtC buddies are going to find your gropup picture in the dictionary, next to "losers."

You have yet to make a single argument which has not already been deemed frivolous by every court which has reviewed it. Do you really believe that continuously reapeating the mantre "Weston is right. Weston is right." will be of any use to you when you have to defend yourself in a civil or criminal prosecution?

Or, are you just spouting nonsense in the hope of establishing an adequate groundwork to avoid criminal conviction via an insanity defense?
Nikki

Re: FAQ Update

Post by Nikki »

LPC wrote:Why don't you answer Nikki's question?

You claim that the IRS is "paper," Nikki confronts you with the reality of actual levies and actual seizures, and you respond with references to paper.

It is *YOU* and Peter Hendrickson that are the "paper tigers" and not the IRS, because everything you say and do is all theory and words, and without any substance or any reality.
All of which have proven to be dead parrots when raised in ANY court.

Weston's horse didn't win. It didn't even finish the race. It dropped dead in the starting gate. taking the jockey with it.

But nothing that we say matters. Weston has shot his holes in the side of the barn and he is carefully painting circles around them. He doesn't care that the shooting range is somewhere in another county -- he makes the rules, interprets them, and decides who is right and wrong.

He will still be spouting his theories to the US Marshall on the court house steps.
Weston White

Re: FAQ Update

Post by Weston White »

LPC wrote:
Weston White wrote:
Nikki wrote::shock:

I wonder how you reconcile your concept of "one large paper tiger they have no authority for anything, concerning the individual" with the undeniable ability to levy wages and salaries, sieze savings, and sell property to collect taxes.

That sounds like a significant number of teeth to me.
Nope, Nope, Nope all Title 27. It is all very, very limited. 6331 - 27 Part 70
Why don't you answer Nikki's question?

You claim that the IRS is "paper," Nikki confronts you with the reality of actual levies and actual seizures, and you respond with references to paper.

It is *YOU* and Peter Hendrickson that are the "paper tigers" and not the IRS, because everything you say and do is all theory and words, and without any substance or any reality.
A. She did not pose a question, B. your closing comment does not even make sense, C.
The actual statutory language underlying 26 USC 6331 confines the application of its authority to a relatively narrow class of "taxpayer"-persons, distinguished by monthly (and other special return) filing requirements-- such as federal "employers", of course, as well as distillers, per section 3307 of the Revised Statutes (R. S.); brewers, per R. S. 3337 and 3338; and tobacco producers, per R. S. 3358 and 3390. Annual filers are not encompassed by this authority (although nothing precludes a normal effort by a government to sue such a filer should he or she declare a taxable amount of "income" on a return, resulting in a tax due, which then goes unpaid). That language reads as follows:

R. S. Sec. 3185. All returns required to be made monthly by any person liable to tax shall be made on or before the tenth day of each month, and the tax assessed or due thereon shall be returned by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to the collector on or before the last day of each month. All returns for which no provision is otherwise made shall be made on or before the tenth day of the month succeeding the time when the tax is due and liable to be assessed, and the tax thereon shall be returned as herein provided for monthly returns, and shall be due and payable on or before the last day of the month in which the assessment is so made. When the said tax is not paid on or before the last day of the month, as aforesaid, the collector shall add a penalty of five per centum, together with interest at the rate of one per centum per month, upon such tax from the time the same became due; but no interest for a fraction of a month shall be demanded: Provided, that notice of the time when such tax becomes due and payable is given in such manner as may be prescribed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. It shall then be the duty of the collector, in case of the non-payment of said tax on or before the last day of the month, as aforesaid, to demand payment thereof, with five per centum added thereto, and interest at the rate of one per centum per month, as aforesaid, in the manner prescribed by law; and if said tax, penalty, and interest, are not paid within ten days after such demand, it shall be lawful for the collector or his deputy to make distraint therefor, as provided by law. (The interest rate established in this statute was changed to 6% per annum by section 404 of the Revenue Act of 1935.)

This language is helpfully reformatted in the original codification of the statute in 1939 (of which the current section 6331 of 26 USC is merely a convenient, consolidated rendering, with no change in meaning):

Part II—Assessment, Collection, and Refund

SEC. 3310. RETURNS AND PAYMENT OF TAX.

(a) MONTHLY RETURNS.—All returns required to be made monthly by any person liable to tax shall be made on or before the 10th day of each month, and the tax assessed or due thereon shall be returned by the Commissioner to the collector on or before the last day of each month.

(b) OTHER RETURNS.—All returns for which no provision is otherwise made shall be made on or before the 10th day of the month succeeding the time when the tax is due and liable to be assessed, and the tax thereon shall be returned as herein provided for monthly returns, and shall be due and payable on or before the last day of the month in which the assessment is so made.

(c) ADDITION TO TAX IN CASE OF NONPAYMENT.—When the said tax is not paid on or before the last day of the month, as aforesaid, the collector shall add a penalty of 5 per centum, together with interest at the rate of 6 per centum per annum, upon such tax from the time the same became due; but no interest for a fraction of a month shall be demanded: Provided, That notice of the time when such tax becomes due and payable is given in such manner as may be prescribed by the Commissioner.

(d) DEMAND FOR TAX, PENALTY, AND INTEREST.—It shall then be the duty of the collector, in case of the nonpayment of said tax on or before the last day of the month, as aforesaid, to demand payment thereof, with 5 per centum added thereto, and interest at the rate of 6 per centum per annum, as aforesaid, in the manner prescribed by law; and

(e) DISTRAINT.—If said tax, penalty, and interest, are not paid within ten days after such demand, it shall be lawful for the collector or his deputy to make distraint therefor, as provided by law.

As previously noted, it will be observed that the distraint (levy) authority is provided only in connection with "monthly return" filers and those required to file "other returns for which no provision [as to filing time] is otherwise made...". This excludes annual filers, for whom filing dates are specified by law, as reflected in the following language of the 1939 IRC:

CHAPTER 1- INCOME TAX

SUBCHAPTER B- GENERAL PROVISIONS

PART V- RETURNS AND PAYMENT OF TAX

SEC. 53. TIME AND PLACE FOR FILING RETURNS.

(a) TIME FOR FILING.—

(1) GENERAL RULE.—Returns made on the basis of the calendar year shall be made on or before the 15th day of March following the close of the calendar year. Returns made on the basis of a fiscal year shall be made on or before the 15th day of the third month following the close of the fiscal year.

(Although the derivation tables for section 6331(a) of the current code indicate that, in addition to section 3310 of the 1939 IRC, elements of sections 3660, 3690, 3692 and 3700 of that earlier code are also reflected in 6331(a)’s construction, none of these expand the scope of application of the levy power. It is only in 3310 that the relevant notice and demand requirement, around which all the other sections revolve, is presented. This accurately reflects the statutes underlying all the relevant derivative 1939 and current IRC sections-- which include R. S. 3187, 3188 and 3196, as well as sections 1016 of the Revenue Act of 1924, 1105 of the Revenue Act of 1932, 510 of the Revenue Act of 1934 and 404 of the Revenue Act of 1935. Only R. S. 3185 imposes the relevant notice and demand protocol, and thus establishes the class to which the related provisions apply. See your CtC Companion CD for the complete language of these code and statute sections.)





The actual statutory language of the "jeopardy" provision, also referenced in a vague and seemingly expansive manner in 26 USC 6331(a) (and presented here as accurately codified in 1939), underscores the limited lawful application of the authority reflected in that code section as a whole:

SEC. 3660. JEOPARDY ASSESSMENT.



(a) If the Commissioner believes that the collection of any tax (other than income tax, estate tax, and gift tax) under any provision of the internal-revenue laws will be jeopardized by delay, he shall, whether or not the time otherwise prescribed by law for making return and paying such tax has expired, immediately assess such tax (together with all interest and penalties the assessment of which is provided for by law). Such tax, penalties, and interest shall thereupon become immediately due and payable, and immediate notice and demand shall be made by the collector for the payment thereof. Upon failure or refusal to pay such tax, penalty, and interest, collection thereof by distraint shall be lawful without regard to the period prescribed in section 3690. (Emphasis added)
and D.
26 USC § 6203 Method of assessment



The assessment shall be made by recording the liability of the taxpayer in the office of the Secretary in accordance with rules or regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Upon request of the taxpayer, the Secretary shall furnish the taxpayer a copy of the record of the assessment;

...among the rules or regulations prescribed by the Secretary, per the directive reflected at 26 USC 6203, we find:

26 CFR § 301.6203-1 Method of assessment



The district director and the director of the regional service center shall appoint one or more assessment officers. The district director shall also appoint assessment officers in a Service Center servicing his district. The assessment shall be made by an assessment officer signing the summary record of assessment. The summary record, through supporting records, shall provide identification of the taxpayer, the character of the liability assessed, the taxable period, if applicable, and the amount of the assessment. The amount of the assessment shall, in the case of tax shown on a return by the taxpayer, be the amount so shown, and in all other cases the amount of the assessment shall be the amount shown on the supporting list or record. The date of the assessment is the date the summary record is signed by an assessment officer. If the taxpayer requests a copy of the record of assessment, he shall be furnished a copy of the pertinent parts of the assessment which set forth the name of the taxpayer, the date of assessment, the character of the liability assessed, the taxable period, if applicable, and the amounts assessed.

...and in regard to "frivolous return" or other penalties assessable as a tax:

26 USC § 6671. Rules for application of assessable penalties



(a) Penalty assessed as tax

The penalties and liabilities provided by this subchapter [which includes section 6702 -PH] shall be paid upon notice and demand by the Secretary, and shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes. Except as otherwise provided, any reference in this title to “tax” imposed by this title shall be deemed also to refer to the penalties and liabilities provided by this subchapter.

and

26 USC § 6751. Procedural Requirements
(b) Approval of assessment

(1) In general
No penalty under this title shall be assessed unless the initial determination of such assessment is personally approved (in writing) by the immediate supervisor of the individual making such determination or such higher level official as the Secretary may designate.
Thus we can see that in order for there to be legal force behind a "notice" demanding money for a tax liability or "frivolous return" or other penalty assessable as a tax and threatening levy, the "notice" must be (or there must have already been) a statutory "notice and demand"; it can only be issued after a record of assessment has been signed by an assessment officer (who therefore becomes legally responsible in a personal capacity for the legitimacy of the assessment); and provisions are in place obliging the Secretary to furnish a copy of that record of assessment to the person alleged to be liable.



Furthermore, an assessment, in turn, can only be made pursuant to a signed return:

26 USC § 6201



(a) Authority of Secretary

The Secretary is authorized and required to make the inquiries, determinations, and assessments of all taxes (including interest, additional amounts, additions to the tax, and assessable penalties) imposed by this title, or accruing under any former internal revenue law, which have not been duly paid by stamp at the time and in the manner provided by law. Such authority shall extend to and include the following:

(1) Taxes shown on return

The Secretary shall assess all taxes determined by the taxpayer or by the Secretary as to which returns or lists are made under this title.



"For a levy to be statutorily authorized in the circumstances here, two conditions must be fulfilled. First, a 10-day notice of intent to levy must have issued. See 26 U.S.C. § 6331(a). Second, the taxpayer must be liable for the tax. Id. Tax liability is a condition precedent to the demand. Merely demanding payment, even repeatedly, does not cause liability.



For the condition precedent of liability to be met, there must be a lawful assessment, either a voluntary one by the taxpayer or one procedurally proper by the IRS. Because this country's income tax system is based on voluntary self-assessment, rather than distraint, Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145, 176, 80 S.Ct. 630, 646-47, 4 L.Ed.2d 623 (1960), the Service may assess the tax only in certain circumstances and in conformity with proper procedures."

Bothke v. Terry, 713 F. 2d 1405, at 1414 (1983).
Weston White

Re: FAQ Update

Post by Weston White »

Nikki wrote:Riiiight. Title 27 :roll: And 26USC means absolutely nothing at all.

Weston, keep up your mental masturbation. It'll keep you occupied until the collection actions get serious and you end up out on the street.

You, Pete, and all your CtC buddies are going to find your gropup picture in the dictionary, next to "losers."

You have yet to make a single argument which has not already been deemed frivolous by every court which has reviewed it. Do you really believe that continuously reapeating the mantre "Weston is right. Weston is right." will be of any use to you when you have to defend yourself in a civil or criminal prosecution?

Or, are you just spouting nonsense in the hope of establishing an adequate groundwork to avoid criminal conviction via an insanity defense?
Sure, that is why I am still awaiting for a case that has stated that taxes upon labor or on money from labor is not a capitation tax or is not a form of direct taxationfor that matter. That is why I am still awaiting for a 6702(c) listing upon that claim, right?

That is why I am still waiting...
That is why I am still waiting...
That is why I am still waiting...
That is why I am still waiting...
...
Nikki

Re: FAQ Update

Post by Nikki »

Aabsolutely none of which precludes the Secretary, or any of his lawful delegates, from making assessments, instituting collection proceedings, or siezing and selling assets.

You are, again, throwing words about without attempting to comprehend their meaning or impact.
Weston White

Re: FAQ Update

Post by Weston White »

Nikki wrote:Aabsolutely none of which precludes the Secretary, or any of his lawful delegates, from making assessments, instituting collection proceedings, or siezing and selling assets.

You are, again, throwing words about without attempting to comprehend their meaning or impact.
But that is just it, the IRS does not perform the required steps, because they can't... otherwise they would have already done so. It is not as if it all that difficult. Geez, the majority of it all would be done automatically anyways. But they can't they would be overstepping their bounds. This is why they play these little games instead sending out a dozen letters, that is not even called for. Honestly there is no need for all of these letters and notices, those are not a requirement by any law. Which is telltale BTW, I mean here they are mailing out all of these unneeded and dubious letters and notices, though they cannot even give you a single required document that is written in law, not even upon your repeated request!

Really if you owe the tax, they claim that you owe, simply write up the assessment, simply write up that authority for the penalty charge and file a claim in court, get the authority from the judge obtain/subpoena the private and personal information about the taxpayers assets and determine the best way to seize the money or property to pay off the tax, easy cheesy. No instead they beat around the bush hoping to scare you to pay them, hoping to wear you down and frustrate you. Or they hope to get you to bite onto the tax court apple and poison yourself into a painfully slow death.
Nikki

Re: FAQ Update

Post by Nikki »

You have the basic process down cold.

You are just omitting the various intervening, legally-required, steps which protect the taxpayers administrative and statutory rights.

For example, the assessment can't be entered until the appropriate notice has been mailed to the taxpayer who then has up to 150 days to contest it in Tax Court which decision doesn't become final and enforcable until the taxpayer has exhausted his appellate rights all the way up to the Supreme Court.

But, following the law and complying with the regulations is totally outside your frame of reference, isn't it?

I suggest that WW's Offical Quatyloosian name be replaced. "The Muttered One" no longer seems to fit, especially since he is a LoserHead PNG. Perhaps WW should now be known as "The Quatloosian Alex Trebek -- all the answers in search of the right question."
Weston White

Re: FAQ Update

Post by Weston White »

Nikki wrote:You have the basic process down cold.

You are just omitting the various intervening, legally-required, steps which protect the taxpayers administrative and statutory rights.

For example, the assessment can't be entered until the appropriate notice has been mailed to the taxpayer who then has up to 150 days to contest it in Tax Court which decision doesn't become final and enforcable until the taxpayer has exhausted his appellate rights all the way up to the Supreme Court.

But, following the law and complying with the regulations is totally outside your frame of reference, isn't it?

I suggest that WW's Offical Quatyloosian name be replaced. "The Muttered One" no longer seems to fit, especially since he is a LoserHead PNG. Perhaps WW should now be known as "The Quatloosian Alex Trebek -- all the answers in search of the right question."
Bzzzzzzt! [that was my wrong answer buzzer imitation noise for you] No you have an undetermined amount of time after clearing the 6 month marker and you can file your case in district court or in court of federal claims. If the IRS actually mails you a notice of claim disallowance you have up to two years to file in said courts. Yea baby, I am just like Trebek, I gots me all the right answers, right in the palm of my hand! :lol:
Weston White

Re: FAQ Update

Post by Weston White »

Even Hendrickson sends me emails telling me he wishes he could be more like me! See this was the real reason he banned me, he became envious and enraged that I was not willing to have his love child :lol:

Wow, a load has been lifted! I could not tell that to anybody until now, instead I had to make up that silly story about the dirty dozen posts to hid the truth. Nikki you are a miracle worker I feel that I can tell you anything. Thank you, thank you!
ASITStands
17th Viscount du Voolooh
Posts: 1088
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:15 pm

Re: FAQ Update

Post by ASITStands »

Weston White wrote:Even Hendrickson sends me emails telling me he wishes he could be more like me! See this was the real reason he banned me, he became envious and enraged that I was not willing to have his love child :lol:

Wow, a load has been lifted! I could not tell that to anybody until now, instead I had to make up that silly story about the dirty dozen posts to hid the truth. Nikki you are a miracle worker I feel that I can tell you anything. Thank you, thank you!
I think you just provided evidence of the narcissism spoken of earlier.

Everything (good, bad) is all about Weston. Sadly, it's appearing you are hopeless.
User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 5631
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 5:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker

Re: FAQ Update

Post by Gregg »

Weston White is a troll. His specious theories and arguments about Federal Income Tax Law have been thoroughly addressed. Following Weston White's advice on tax matters will likely result in a very unpleasant result (see Hendrickson, Peter http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=1821).

Please don't feed the troll.
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: FAQ Update

Post by LPC »

Nikki wrote:I suggest that WW's Offical Quatyloosian name be replaced. "The Muttered One" no longer seems to fit, especially since he is a LoserHead PNG. Perhaps WW should now be known as "The Quatloosian Alex Trebek -- all the answers in search of the right question."
My suggestion:

"Official Mascot for the Quatloosian Jabberwocky Team."
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
Judge Roy Bean
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Posts: 3704
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 6:04 pm
Location: West of the Pecos

Re: FAQ Update

Post by Judge Roy Bean »

Nikki wrote:I suggest that WW's Offical Quatyloosian name be replaced. "The Muttered One" no longer seems to fit, especially since he is a LoserHead PNG. Perhaps WW should now be known as "The Quatloosian Alex Trebek -- all the answers in search of the right question."
How about:

"Master of Ctrl-c Ctrl-v"
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy.
The Devil Makes Three