Ex-Navy TP tries to save his pension

A collection of old posts from all forums. No new threads or new posts in old threads allowed. For archive use only.
User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 4344
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 6:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker
Contact:

Re: Ex-Navy TP tries to save his pension

Postby Gregg » Sat Jul 11, 2009 12:07 am

Amazing, not one single hint that "6065 only applies to documents originating with the taxpayer". Guess you have to have one of those secret decoder rings issued by the Federal Government to make that determination. It's this kind of crap that makes average people believe, and rightfully so, the federal courts are just a sham concerning taxpayers rights under the law. If congress truly intended it to be the way the courts have interpreted it they would have written it that way. Even if it was an error, one opinion forcing the government to comply with 6065 would prompt the congress to amend the statute almost immediately. Instead the courts ignore the law as written and make up their own version whenever they see fit.


Well, I'm inclined to almost agree with you that the wording is not very clear. BUT, the difference between the deluded and the normal is the way they deal with it. Normal people do whatever triggers the dispute in the meaning, it goes to court, the court decides and until another court rules different or the law is changed, that's the way it is.
Deluded people seem to believe that they get the final say on what it means, which gets us to such ridiculous things as Pete Hendricksons definition of includes and other nonsense.

And as for being clear, does Congress write the itty bitty text of the code, or is it fleshed out by the IRS?
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.

User avatar
Quixote
Quatloosian Master of Deception
Posts: 1538
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 3:00 am
Location: Sanhoudalistan

Re: Ex-Navy TP tries to save his pension

Postby Quixote » Sat Jul 11, 2009 12:10 am

SteveSy wrote:
Plaintiff argues that the Notice of Federal Tax Lien was not certified or signed in accordance with 26 U.S.C. section 6065, so it was procedurally invalid. 26 U.S.C. section 6065 (1976). However, the Tax Court has determined that 26 U.S.C. section 6065 only applies to documents originating with the taxpayer. Milam v. C.I.R., 87 T.C.M. (CCH) 1214 (2004), action on dec., 2004-94 (April 6, 2004) (citing Davis v. C.I.R., 115 T.C. 35 (2000). Therefore, the Notice of Federal Tax Lien is not required to be certified or signed. Summary judgment is appropriate on this issue.


Here is the actual law:
Except as otherwise provided by the Secretary, any return, declaration, statement, or other document required to be made under any provision of the internal revenue laws or regulations shall contain or be verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury.
- Emphasis mine

Amazing, not one single hint that "6065 only applies to documents originating with the taxpayer". Guess you have to have one of those secret decoder rings issued by the Federal Government to make that determination. It's this kind of crap that makes average people believe, and rightfully so, the federal courts are just a sham concerning taxpayers rights under the law. If congress truly intended it to be the way the courts have interpreted it they would have written it that way. Even if it was an error, one opinion forcing the government to comply with 6065 would prompt the congress to amend the statute almost immediately. Instead the courts ignore the law as written and make up their own version whenever they see fit.


Ah, Steve's selective amnesia and selective reading skills strike again.

Except as otherwise provided by the Secretary ...


As was explained to you the last time you ranted about 6065, the Secretary didn't put a jurat over the signature line on the NFTL, thereby providing that none was required.
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat

SteveSy

Re: Ex-Navy TP tries to save his pension

Postby SteveSy » Sat Jul 11, 2009 12:46 am

Quixote wrote:Ah, Steve's selective amnesia and selective reading skills strike again.

Except as otherwise provided by the Secretary ...


As was explained to you the last time you ranted about 6065, the Secretary didn't put a jurat over the signature line on the NFTL, thereby providing that none was required.


Wow, didn't realize that the secretary designs the forms, he must be a really busy guy. I also didn't realize that anything the IRS or its employees do is automatically considered authorized by the Secretary. There's actually a process in place for the Secretary to authorize certain things. But you won't want to get in to that would you. That might prove to be inconvenient considering there are many things that are done that have no formal authorization from the Secretary. This being one of them, and its why the courts had to resort to making crap up instead of letting congress make the law.

Quixote, you sure make some dumb arguments. Not even the courts resort to such silly reasoning. At least they make no bones about it and just make it up as they go. Since you love to rely so much on court cases, why not post a case that says anything like the nonsense you just posted. Good luck, you'll need it because I'm sure you'll have a hard time finding anyone who was willing to be laughingstock of the legal community.

btw, you will find NOTHING otherwise provided by the Secretary that says 6065 applies only to returns and declarations originating from the taxpayer.

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7169
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Ex-Navy TP tries to save his pension

Postby Famspear » Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:05 am

Hey, Steve is baaaaaackkkkk.....

And as usual he is straaaaaaaaaaaaiiiinnnnnning to interpret each and every law in a way that "proves" to him that he is perfectly reasonable in concluding that the courts are wrong about things, and that the dimwits known as tax protesters are perfectly reasonable in their doofus interpretations of the laws as well.

Steve, if you have this kind of problem with section 6065, you obviously either haven't studied much law, ooorrrrrrrrrr.....

you just like to straaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnn yourself.

Steve wrote:

Wow, didn't realize that the secretary designs the forms, he must be a really busy guy.


Wow, Steve, I didn't realize you don't know (or you have forgotten) the legal definition, in the Internal Revenue Code, of the word "Secretary," as opposed to the meaning of the phrase "Secretary of the Treasury."

I also didn't realize that anything the IRS or its employees do is automatically considered authorized by the Secretary. There's actually a process in place for the Secretary to authorize certain things.


Duh, yeah. They're called delegation orders.

But you won't want to get in to that would you. That might prove to be inconvenient considering there are many things that are done that have no formal authorization from the Secretary. This being one of them, and its why the courts had to resort to making crap up instead of letting congress make the law.


Steve, I don't think you're really this dumb. I think you're faking it today.
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons

SteveSy

Re: Ex-Navy TP tries to save his pension

Postby SteveSy » Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:16 am

Gregg wrote:
Amazing, not one single hint that "6065 only applies to documents originating with the taxpayer". Guess you have to have one of those secret decoder rings issued by the Federal Government to make that determination. It's this kind of crap that makes average people believe, and rightfully so, the federal courts are just a sham concerning taxpayers rights under the law. If congress truly intended it to be the way the courts have interpreted it they would have written it that way. Even if it was an error, one opinion forcing the government to comply with 6065 would prompt the congress to amend the statute almost immediately. Instead the courts ignore the law as written and make up their own version whenever they see fit.


Well, I'm inclined to almost agree with you that the wording is not very clear. BUT, the difference between the deluded and the normal is the way they deal with it. Normal people do whatever triggers the dispute in the meaning, it goes to court, the court decides and until another court rules different or the law is changed, that's the way it is.


That may be but it doesn't change the fact that the court just pulled that out of their arse. The courts are supposed to be unbiased. That interpretation is clearly biased because there's nothing in the wording of 6065 that even remotely hints that "6065 only applies to documents originating with the taxpayer". An unbiased court would have ruled that the IRS must comply with 6065 and then congress would amend it thereby making it clear it was intended for taxpayers only if in fact it was intended to apply like that.

You said that "the wording is not very clear". What are you smoking, how can it be any more clear. The only thing that isn't clear is how the hell the court could conclude that it only applies to taxpayers when it unambiguously says "any return, declaration, statement, or other document required to be made under any provision of the internal revenue laws or regulations shall contain or be verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury" with only one exception and that being that the Secretary make such an exception.
Last edited by SteveSy on Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7169
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Ex-Navy TP tries to save his pension

Postby Famspear » Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:20 am

Take a look at this provision of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, at 11 USC sec. 505(a)(1):

Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, the court may determine the amount or legality of any tax, any fine or penalty relating to a tax, or any addition to tax, whether or not previously assessed, whether or not paid, and whether or not contested before and adjudicated by a judicial or administrative tribunal of competent jurisdiction.


(bolding added).

Steve's tortured, straining "interpretation" of section 6065 reminds me of the argument that since there is no provision in paragraph (2) of section 505(a) that says otherwise, this provision would somehow give the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in any case the power to determine the tax of a Tibetan monk who is a citizen of Tibet who has lived his whole life in Tibet, who has never left Tibet, who has never had a penny of income from a U.S. source, and who has never been the subject of a U.S. bankruptcy proceeding in any way -- after all, the statute does LITERALLY SAY "any tax, any fine or penalty relating to a tax, or any addition to tax".

Of course, those crazy federal courts would indeed interpret this provision to apply ONLY to "any tax, any fine or penalty relating to a tax, or any addition to tax" of the DEBTOR or the DEBTOR'S ESTATE that is the subject of the particular bankruptcy case in question.
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7169
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Ex-Navy TP tries to save his pension

Postby Famspear » Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:29 am

Steve wrote:

The only thing that isn't clear is how the hell the court could conclude that it only applies to taxpayers when it unambiguously says "any return, declaration, statement, or other document required to be made under any provision of the internal revenue laws or regulations shall contain or be verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury" with only one exception and that being that the Secretary make such an exception.


We're waiting for your brilliant explanation as to how it's possible that the Secretary has NOT made a legally valid exception EACH AND EVERY TIME the Internal Revenue Service generates an internal document or form that does not contain a space for a "written declaration" to be made under "penalty of perjury."

Let's hear it Steve. We want you to go look for the supposed law that says that for each and every internal IRS document that doesn't contain such a space, the Secretary has NOT "provided" for an exception under section 6065.

Or, maybe it's that Steve thinks that the Secretary must literally issue an order for EVERY SINGLE KIND OF DOCUMENT GENERATED BY THE IRS that says "hey, this particular kind of document doesn't have to have a penalty of perjury declaration."

Go ahead and look, Steve. We'll wait here for you.

Prediction: Steve comes up with nothing but more bloviating and bluster.
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons

SteveSy

Re: Ex-Navy TP tries to save his pension

Postby SteveSy » Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:47 am

Famspear wrote:Take a look at this provision of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, at 11 USC sec. 505(a)(1):

Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, the court may determine the amount or legality of any tax, any fine or penalty relating to a tax, or any addition to tax, whether or not previously assessed, whether or not paid, and whether or not contested before and adjudicated by a judicial or administrative tribunal of competent jurisdiction.


(bolding added).

Steve's tortured, straining "interpretation" of section 6065

OMG, tortured and strained? Really lay off the crack sir...YOU have to add in fricking words to make your interpretation work...Jesus. I add nothing.



Famspear wrote:after all, the statute does LITERALLY SAY "any tax, any fine or penalty relating to a tax, or any addition to tax".

Of course, those crazy federal courts would indeed interpret this provision to apply ONLY to "any tax, any fine or penalty relating to a tax, or any addition to tax" of the DEBTOR or the DEBTOR'S ESTATE that is the subject of the particular bankruptcy case in question.

Obviously that was the intention of that statue. 6065 isn't so obvious. There's nothing wrong with the IRS being required to legally stand by their accusations or declarations especially since we are required to.

Regardless its not the job of the court to make the law, it's congress. If the law was intended to be different then congress should change it, not the courts. It's not fair to the citizen's who are required to follow the law to expect them to rummage through thousands of court cases to know what the law is when it clearly says something else.

SteveSy

Re: Ex-Navy TP tries to save his pension

Postby SteveSy » Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:52 am

jg wrote:So, it is indeed quite clear to whom section 6065 is applicable.

Your inability or unwillingness to understand the applicability of section 6065 is not a defect of the section or the court decisions regarding that section.


I read the entire thing twice, it doesn't release the IRS from the requirement anywhere. Nor does it say or hint anywhere it is only for documents originating from the taxpayer. Your inability to provide evidence of an exception for the IRS isn't a defect of mine, its a defect of yours sir.

SteveSy

Re: Ex-Navy TP tries to save his pension

Postby SteveSy » Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:04 am

Famspear wrote:Or, maybe it's that Steve thinks that the Secretary must literally issue an order for EVERY SINGLE KIND OF DOCUMENT GENERATED BY THE IRS that says "hey, this particular kind of document doesn't have to have a penalty of perjury declaration."

How about a regulation that simply says 6065 only applies to documents originating from the taxpayer. Golly gee Wally, that would clear it up nicely....but that's too much effort. Instead let's have case after case of court opinion effectively doing the job of congress and the secretary for them. That's a much better option isn't it Wally. :roll:

Besides, having the IRS and it's employees actually being held accountable legally is ridiculous right. I mean they should be able to totally destroy someone financially, seize their life savings, their paychecks and all their property without repercussion. They already face having something put in their personal file which could eventually get them fired or god forbid denial of a promotion if they do something wrong. Damn, what's wrong with me.


Prediction: Steve comes up with nothing but more bloviating and bluster.[/size]


Prediction Famspear will always side with the government no matter how stupid, unjust or unreasonable it is because it's his job.
Last edited by SteveSy on Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Quixote
Quatloosian Master of Deception
Posts: 1538
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 3:00 am
Location: Sanhoudalistan

Re: Ex-Navy TP tries to save his pension

Postby Quixote » Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:05 am

Wow, didn't realize that the secretary designs the forms, ...


Oh yeah. Alexander Hamilton's second draft of the first customs declaration recently sold for $61,000 at Sotheby's.
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat

Nikki

Re: Ex-Navy TP tries to save his pension

Postby Nikki » Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:10 am

Except as otherwise provided by the Secretary, any return, declaration, statement, or other document required to be made under any provision of the internal revenue laws or regulations shall contain or be verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury.


The law doesn't specify how the Secreatry of the Treasury is required to make such provision, doesn't speak to any need for delegation orders, and doesn't constrain, in any way how the provision can be made.

So, the Secretary delegates the authority to the Commissioner who then, in turn delegates it down to the IRS document design analysts.

These, the people actually designing the various internal and external forms, have the authority -- vested in them via delegation from the Secretary -- to decide which forms require attestation and which do not.

Sorry, Steve, but it's that simple.

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7169
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Ex-Navy TP tries to save his pension

Postby Famspear » Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:48 am

SteveSy wrote:
Famspear wrote:Or, maybe it's that Steve thinks that the Secretary must literally issue an order for EVERY SINGLE KIND OF DOCUMENT GENERATED BY THE IRS that says "hey, this particular kind of document doesn't have to have a penalty of perjury declaration."

How about a regulation that simply says 6065 only applies to documents originating from the taxpayer. Golly gee Wally, that would clear it up nicely....but that's too much effort. Instead let's have case after case of court opinion effectively doing the job of congress and the secretary for them. That's a much better option isn't it Wally. :roll:

Besides, having the IRS and it's employees actually being held accountable legally is ridiculous right. I mean they should be able to totally destroy someone financially, seize their life savings, their paychecks and all their property without repercussion. They already face having something put in their personal file which could eventually get them fired or god forbid denial of a promotion if they do something wrong. Damn, what's wrong with me.


Prediction: Steve comes up with nothing but more bloviating and bluster.[/size]


Prediction Famspear will always side with the government no matter how stupid, unjust or unreasonable it is because it's his job.


Oh, yes, it's so important that each and every internal IRS document be signed under penalty of perjury -- or that there be some sort of general delegation order that expressly exempts those documents from that requirement -- otherwise, TAXPAYERS' RIGHTS WILL BE CRUSHED!

Give us a break, Steve. Spare us the fake outrage.

And no, I'm not "siding with the government" -- and siding with the government is not my "job."
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7169
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Ex-Navy TP tries to save his pension

Postby Famspear » Sat Jul 11, 2009 3:19 am

While you're at it Steve, why don't you tell us why you think the issuance of a Notice of Federal Tax Lien is "required" for purposes of section 6065, and what taxpayer "right" is crushed by any of the following:

1. the issuance of a Notice of Federal Tax Lien -- whether it contains a signature "under penalty of perjury" or not;

2. the recordation of a Notice of Federal Tax lien -- whether it contains a signature "under pnalty of perjury" or not.

Go ahead Steve. Tell us why you think the issuance or recordation of such a notice is "required" for purposes of the internal revenue laws, or for purposes of section 6065 in particular.

Hint: A Notice of Federal Tax Lien, like an IRS administrative summons, is not "required" by the internal revenue laws of the United States. The filing of a federal income tax return IS REQUIRED by those laws.

As anyone who has studied the case law on section 6065 should know, although a Notice of Federal Tax Lien serves a certain legal purpose (as does a summons), that is not the same as saying that these documents, or the issuance of these documents, is "required" for purposes of section 6065.

Go ahead, Steve. Enlighten us.
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7169
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Ex-Navy TP tries to save his pension

Postby Famspear » Sat Jul 11, 2009 3:43 am

I'll give you a hint, Steve.

Since this is about a Notice of Federal Tax Lien, assume the following facts.

A taxpayer has a tax properly assessed against him by the IRS. The IRS issues a notice and demand for the tax, which the taxpayer receives and reads, but the taxpayer does not pay the tax within the time period prescribed in the notice.

A few months later, the IRS issues a Notice of Federal Tax Lien, and has it duly recorded in the appropriate office. The notice is not signed under penalty of perjury. Now, let us pretend for purposes of this example that the law actually does require that the notice be signed under penalty of perjury, and that there is no delegation order, etc., exempting such a notice from that requirement.

The IRS then goes to try to seize various assets owned by the taxpayer that are covered by the lien (and by the Notice). The taxpayer objects IN COURT on the ground that the Notice is invalid. The COURT agrees with the taxpayer and rules THAT THE NOTICE IS INDEED INVALID (based on the "pretend law" described above).

Now, the taxpayer says: "OK, so the IRS cannot seize my assets, right?"

The Court says: "Sorry, but the IRS can legally seize your assets, and the tax lien is legally valid against you, Mr. Taxpayer. There was no need for the IRS to issue the Notice in the first place -- it wasn't REQUIRED in order for the tax lien to be valid against you."

Taxpayer loses.

Steve, do you understand why this is so? Do you understand why the Notice was not "required" for purposes of the internal revenue laws?

EDIT: Steve, what I am illustrating for you here (and I'm deliberately hiding the ball, not telling you everything about the law) is that there are multiple reasons why section 6065 does not work the way you are straining to try to make it work. For one thing, it does not generally apply to internal IRS documents. Second, most such documents aren't even "required" under the internal revenue laws, for purposes of section 6065.

EDIT 2: Notice that in this situation, the taxpayer is NO BETTER OFF OR WORSE OFF than if the Notice had been signed under penalty of perjury. The result is exactly the same whether (A) the notice had never been issued, or (B) the notice had been issued without being signed under penalty of perjury, or (C) the notice had been issued as signed under penalty of perjury. In each and every case, the tax lien is valid against the taxpayer, and the taxpayer loses the assets. Thus, Steve's argument -- (and I'm paraphrasing) that the taxpayer's rights are somehow being injured because the IRS isn't being required to "comply" with section 6065 -- is incorrect.
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons

User avatar
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5231
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 4:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: Ex-Navy TP tries to save his pension

Postby LPC » Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:17 am

Famspear wrote:Steve, do you understand why this is so? Do you understand why the Notice was not "required" for purposes of the internal revenue laws?

No, he does not, and will not.
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.

.
Pirate Purveyor of the Last Word
Posts: 1674
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 3:06 am

Re: Ex-Navy TP tries to save his pension

Postby . » Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:28 am

Why is it that a TP (or any taxpayer for that matter) would be the least bit concerned about a NOTICE directed at third parties and which has nothing to do with the validity or enforceability of the statutory lien as against the taxpayer?

'Tis a puzzlement.
All the States incorporated daughter corporations for transaction of business in the 1960s or so. - Some voice in Van Pelt's head, circa 2006.

User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 6575
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:48 am
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Ex-Navy TP tries to save his pension

Postby The Observer » Sat Jul 11, 2009 5:23 am

. wrote:Why is it that a TP (or any taxpayer for that matter) would be the least bit concerned about a NOTICE directed at third parties and which has nothing to do with the validity or enforceability of the statutory lien as against the taxpayer?

'Tis a puzzlement.


No, it is their (as well as Steve's) vain attempt to find some sort of loophole or failure on the part of the IRS/court/government in the belief that it will undercut the government's position. This is akin to your 6-year old trying to avoid being punished for hitting his sister by pointing out that she stuck her tongue out at him. In both cases, the transgressor latches onto a irrelevant and baseless observation and tries to turn it into the crime of the century.
"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

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7169
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Ex-Navy TP tries to save his pension

Postby Famspear » Sat Jul 11, 2009 5:30 am

. wrote:Why is it that a TP (or any taxpayer for that matter) would be the least bit concerned about a NOTICE directed at third parties and which has nothing to do with the validity or enforceability of the statutory lien as against the taxpayer?

'Tis a puzzlement.


Yes, my theory is that it's because those people don't really study the law. They don't make a serious study of the law, and they don't learn or use proper methods of legal analysis. So, they see the term "Notice of Federal Tax Lien" and (almost with realizing that they're doing it) they assume that it is the notice itself, or the existence of the notice, or the issuance of the notice, or the recordation of the notice, that "creates" the lien or that "makes the lien be legally valid" against the taxpayer. A person trained in legal analysis should be able to say:

....wait a minute, I'm making an ASSUMPTION HERE. Before I go further, I need to determine whether this assumption is correct. What exactly is the PURPOSE of the Notice of Federal Tax Lien? What is the LEGAL EFFECT of the signing of the notice? What is the LEGAL EFFECT of the recordation of the notice? Which entities are affected by this Notice, and which are not?


About 99% of tax protester zzzzzoooooooommm by those questions; it never occurs to them that they are even making an assumption, much less one that might be incorrect.

It's the same kind of mistake that causes people to incorrectly assume that the Sixteenth Amendment's language, "shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes", means that the Amendment CREATED the power to impose the income tax -- to incorrectly assume that the power to impose the income tax did not exist before the amendment. They look at the words and read something into the words that is not really there -- in part because they don't know the context and in part because they are not only unaware that they are making an incorrect assumption, they are unaware that they are even making an assumption at all.

SteveSy and others look at the language of section 6065 and it's as though they don't really "see" the phrase "required to be made". What they "see" are the words "under any provision of the internal revenue laws.....".

In essence, they are misreading section 6065, as though it were worded as follows:

.....any return, declaration, statement, or other document [deleting the words "required to be" here] made [inserting the words "by either the taxpayer or the Secretary" here] under any provision of the internal revenue laws or regulations.....


And, of course, they create the additional phantom "requirement" that in order for an internal IRS document to be "exempt" from the "rule," the "provision" made by the Secretary must somehow take some particular form or be issued in some particular way, with some particular "formality." It's like people who believe that they have a right to see the "actual assessment" of tax in order for the assessment to be legally valid. They "read in" a phantom legal requirement, in part because it's "sounds reasonable" to them that there should be such a requirement.

I think that on some level, many of them really don't realize that they're making it up as they go along -- they're just so narcissistic that they "believe" that the world (and in particular, the "tax law world") somehow actually does work the way their own minds work. They see themselves as the center of the universe. They think of their own thought patterns as being "the world's" thought patterns.

It is as Dan said recently: what they write is gibberish to us, because what we write is gibberish to them. People like Steve really don't see the world (and the tax law in particular) the way it really is, because these people can't distinguish the world from themselves -- or to be more precise, they can't distinguish the world from their own delusional beliefs about themselves.

I had an acquaintaince a few years back who was very caught up in narcissistic personality disorder, and it was obvious that he really did not realize that most people were not nearly as interested in HIS thoughts, HIS beliefs, HIS desires, HIS interests. He really did not have a strong grasp of how disliked he was among other people; he was simply so self-centered that he could not use objective criteria -- criteria imposed on an outside "authority" as a basis for evaluating himself or his daily life. Everything in the world, in his mind, was about what HE believed, what HE desired, what HE was interested in.

Tax protesters as a group suffer from this. Not only are court rulings, for example, not considered by these people to be authority, they really consider everything outside their own idiosycratic method and belief system to be somehow "not real." What is "real" for them (what they "believe" to be real) are their own thoughts, their own desires. They "want" the tax law to be invalid; therefore, in their minds, it is invalid.
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons

User avatar
Quixote
Quatloosian Master of Deception
Posts: 1538
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 3:00 am
Location: Sanhoudalistan

Re: Ex-Navy TP tries to save his pension

Postby Quixote » Sat Jul 11, 2009 7:46 am

. wrote:Why is it that a TP (or any taxpayer for that matter) would be the least bit concerned about a NOTICE directed at third parties and which has nothing to do with the validity or enforceability of the statutory lien as against the taxpayer?

'Tis a puzzlement.


The average taxpayer is concerned about a notice of tax lien (NFTL) due to its effect on their credit rating and their perceived equity in real property. A federal tax lien is a secret lien until a NFTL is filed. A person can owe thousands of dollars to Uncle Sam, but the debt won't hurt his credit until the NFTL is filed.

The perceived equity problem came to my attention for the first time last year. Loan underwriters won't OK a loan, regardless of the priority of their mortgage, unless all liens against a property are below a certain percentage of the market value. Fannie Mae's loan/value limit in 2008 was 105%, for example. Say a taxpayer has a $200,000 home on which he owes $160,000 to a bank which will lend up to 90% of MV, as long as the lien/MV ration stays below 105%. He owes the IRS $50,000. No NFTL has been filed. He can borrow $20,000 against his equity to pay down the IRS debt because his lien/value would be 90%. If the NFTL were filed, his lien/value ratio would be 110% and the bank wouldn't lend him the money.
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat


Return to “Public Archives -- Read Only”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests