The DOJ Criminal Tax Manual now has a full chapter (revised February, 2015) on false retaliatory liens:
http://www.justice.gov/tax/readingroom/ ... r%2027.pdf
False Retaliatory Liens - DOJ Tax Manual Chapter
Moderators: Prof, Judge Roy Bean
-
jcolvin2
- Grand Master Consul of Quatloosia
- Posts: 822
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 3:19 am
- Location: Seattle
-
fortinbras
- Princeps Wooloosia
- Posts: 3144
- Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 4:50 pm
Re: False Retaliatory Liens - DOJ Tax Manual Chapter
Reading that chapter I found a glitch.
The case cited on page 5 as U.S. v. Chance with a WestLaw number (indicating it has not been published) is the same decision cited on page 10, but can be cited more expansively as U.S. v. Chance (4th Cir. 11/6/2012) 496 Fed.Appx 302 cert.den (5/28/13) _US_, 133 S.Ct 2740, 186 L.Ed.2d 198 (the IRS manual omits the certiorari portion). However, and this is important, the first citation (page 5) misreads the decision and says that expert testimony is not required to establish that the lien is false; the decision actually says that the court may exclude expert evidence of the defendant's mental illness if it does amount to the severity required by the federal Insanity Defense Reform Act (18USC § 17, which essentially is the M'Naughton standard). It does not speak to the nature of evidence that the lien is false.
The case cited on page 5 as U.S. v. Chance with a WestLaw number (indicating it has not been published) is the same decision cited on page 10, but can be cited more expansively as U.S. v. Chance (4th Cir. 11/6/2012) 496 Fed.Appx 302 cert.den (5/28/13) _US_, 133 S.Ct 2740, 186 L.Ed.2d 198 (the IRS manual omits the certiorari portion). However, and this is important, the first citation (page 5) misreads the decision and says that expert testimony is not required to establish that the lien is false; the decision actually says that the court may exclude expert evidence of the defendant's mental illness if it does amount to the severity required by the federal Insanity Defense Reform Act (18USC § 17, which essentially is the M'Naughton standard). It does not speak to the nature of evidence that the lien is false.