Erroneous Congressman's Letter or Erroneous Interpretation?

User avatar
NYGman
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1607
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 7:01 pm
Location: New York, NY

Re: Erroneous Congressman's Letter or Erroneous Interpretation?

Postby NYGman » Wed Dec 09, 2015 7:43 pm

Also point out that the letter was drafted in 1985, and on a whole, tax laws have changed from that point in time. Further, as for legal reliance, I don't think this letter even blips the scale. You have IRS Code/Regs, Temporary regs, Case Law, Revenue Rulings, Revenue procedures, proposed regs, legislative history, IRS Notices, PLR's (to a lessor degree), and I am probably missing a few more. All of these items would be given more weight than a 30 year old letter from a former congressman, of dubious origin.

I certainly would not want to go to court against the IRS with only this letter to hand.
The Hardest Thing in the World to Understand is Income Taxes -Albert Einstein

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose - As sung by Janis Joplin (and others) Written by Kris Kristofferson and Fred Foster.

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10755
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Erroneous Congressman's Letter or Erroneous Interpretation?

Postby notorial dissent » Wed Dec 09, 2015 8:51 pm

It certainly won't be the first, or last for that matter, time that some Congresscritter sent out something stupid and or wrong. The normal course of events would have been for them to have forwarded the request to the IRS to be answered, maybe they did and maybe they didn't. I am still more than inclined to put these down to something along the lines of the Trafficante speech. In any case, Congresscrtters ARE NOT valid legal references for anything.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

AndyK
Illuminatian Revenue Supremo Emeritus
Posts: 1299
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 9:13 pm
Location: Maryland

Re: Erroneous Congressman's Letter or Erroneous Interpretation?

Postby AndyK » Wed Dec 09, 2015 9:11 pm

Patriotdiscussions through a thick cloud of smoke wrote:
Number Six wrote:I was following a discussion of this letter on an online forum: http://www.losthorizons.com/comment/noticeoflevy.htm

So is this letter accurate or is the interpretation off from what I have seen people on forums assume? Thanks.

Looks right to me.


PD: ANYTHING posted on Lost Horizons (or LoserHeads as we call them) is presumable to be bogus. Why don't you do some research on the L.H. founder to dig up his resume and qualifications.
Taxes are the price we pay for a free society and to cover the responsibilities of the evaders

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7179
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Erroneous Congressman's Letter or Erroneous Interpretation?

Postby Famspear » Wed Dec 09, 2015 9:48 pm

Speaking of the L.H. founder, Peter Eric ("Blowhard") Hendrickson, and his resume and qualifications:

http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/peter-hendrickson
...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

Patriotdiscussions
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 468
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 4:27 pm

Re: Erroneous Congressman's Letter or Erroneous Interpretation?

Postby Patriotdiscussions » Wed Dec 09, 2015 10:06 pm

AndyK wrote:
Patriotdiscussions through a thick cloud of smoke wrote:
Number Six wrote:I was following a discussion of this letter on an online forum: http://www.losthorizons.com/comment/noticeoflevy.htm

So is this letter accurate or is the interpretation off from what I have seen people on forums assume? Thanks.

Looks right to me.


PD: ANYTHING posted on Lost Horizons (or LoserHeads as we call them) is presumable to be bogus. Why don't you do some research on the L.H. founder to dig up his resume and qualifications.


I believe that to be true about peter and his site as well, hence why im not there asking them questions.

However if the letter is false or not, nothing in the paragraph gives authority to levy private citizens, in fact, I have yet to find a irs reg/code that does say they have the authority to levy private citizens.


Now I know you folks will say, the first sentence does, ,and I know the government agrees with you, lots of case law, yada,yada.

Now you guys assume that levy can be made against any taxpayer, if that is the case, and this portion of the law has been getting challenged for over 20 years, why does it still say this.....

Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official.


When it would make more sense, and fit better with the golden rule to say this....

Levy may be made on any taxpayer.

Lets hear the reason why.

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7179
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Erroneous Congressman's Letter or Erroneous Interpretation?

Postby Famspear » Wed Dec 09, 2015 10:14 pm

Patriotdiscussions wrote:However if the letter is false or not, nothing in the paragraph gives authority to levy private citizens, in fact, I have yet to find a irs reg/code that does say they have the authority to levy private citizens.


Wrong. The statute cited gives the authority to levy private citizens. And yes, you have found the Code section that authorizes the IRS to levy the assets of a private citizen.

Now I know you folks will say, the first sentence does, ,and I know the government agrees with you, lots of case law, yada,yada.


No, not "yada, yada." The law is what the Code says, and the law is what the courts rule the Code to mean.

Now you guys assume that levy can be made against any taxpayer, if that is the case, and this portion of the law has been getting challenged for over 20 years, why does it still say this.....

Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official.


We've already answered that question. Earlier in this thread.

When it would make more sense, and fit better with the golden rule to say this....

Levy may be made on any taxpayer.

Lets hear the reason why.


No, let's not hear the reason why. Go back and read my earlier post in this thread. The law hasn't changed in the last few days since I posted that material.

The law is never going to be what you want it to be, "Patriotdiscussions." The law is what the statute says, and what the courts rule the statute to mean.
...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: 7179
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Erroneous Congressman's Letter or Erroneous Interpretation?

Postby Famspear » Wed Dec 09, 2015 10:20 pm

One of the hallmarks of tax protesters is that they often claim that a particular statute has to be worded in just a certain way for the law to be what the courts rule the law to be. This is an imaginary rule made up by tax protesters. Unfortunately for them, there is no such rule.

Statutes are worded the way they are worded, and courts interpret the meaning of statutes based on certain legal doctrines. Under the U.S. legal system, the law means what the courts rule the law to mean. Interpreting U.S. federal law -- saying what the law is in the context of an actual case or controversy -- is a judicial function, not a "Patriotdiscussions" function.
...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
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 6643
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:48 am
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Erroneous Congressman's Letter or Erroneous Interpretation?

Postby The Observer » Wed Dec 09, 2015 10:54 pm

Even more to the point is the fact that there have been a number of court cases (some of which have been posted on Quatloos as examples) where the tax protester failed making that argument. PD will never be able to show that the argument has prevailed and been upheld by other courts.
"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: 7179
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Erroneous Congressman's Letter or Erroneous Interpretation?

Postby Famspear » Wed Dec 09, 2015 10:59 pm

Oh, what the heck......

8)

Regarding the goofy tax protester argument that section 6331 should allow the IRS to seize only the salary of an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States or the District of Columbia, the argument was rejected over 50 years ago, by the United States Supreme Court in Sims v. United States, 359 U.S. 108 (1959), as noted earlier in this thread.

Tax protesters have presented variations of this argument, which the courts have always ruled to be without legal merit. See, e.g., the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in James v. United States, 970 F.2d 750, 755, n. 9 (10th Cir. 1992).

See also Peth v. Breitzmann, 611 F. Supp. 50 (E.D. Wis. 1985).

See Pawlowske v. Chrysler Corp., 623 F. Supp. 569 (N.D. Ill. 1985).

See Craig v. Lowe, 96-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,416 (N.D. Calif. 1996).

See Maisano v. Welcher, 940 F.2d 499 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied sub nom. Maisano v. IRS, 504 U.S. 916, 112 S. Ct. 1957 (1992) (Court ruled that no court order is required for a valid IRS seizure under section 6331, and that the power of IRS seizure under section 6331 is not limited to salaries of federal government personnel, etc).

Since at least 1867, the Federal tax collector has also held the power to sell property of a delinquent taxpayer to satisfy a Federal income tax liability, even before physically ejecting the taxpayer from the property. See the United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881) (date is often listed as "1880"; decision was actually rendered in January 1881).

The Congress has enacted various provisions in the Internal Revenue Code from time to time, to provide a requirement for court approval of certain kinds of levies (such as certain seizures of the taxpayer’s principal residence), as well as certain limitations on the amounts that may be levied, and certain items exempt from levy (such as wearing apparel, school books, furniture, personal effects, tools of trade, judgments for support of minor children, etc.). But those provisions are matters of legislative grace.

EDIT: Example, from James v. United States, 970 F.2d 750, 755, n. 9 (10th Cir. 1992), cited above:

Plaintiffs also assert that the levy was invalid under 26 U.S.C. § 6331(a) because Mr. James was not an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States or the District of Columbia, or of any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs' argument is frivolous. Section 6331(a) empowers the IRS to levy the property of all taxpayers. See Sims v. United States, 359 U.S. 108, 112-13, 79 S.Ct. 641, 644-45, 3 L.Ed.2d 667 (1959)....


Oh, boo-hoo!

:cry:
...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
NYGman
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1607
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 7:01 pm
Location: New York, NY

Re: Erroneous Congressman's Letter or Erroneous Interpretation?

Postby NYGman » Wed Dec 09, 2015 11:03 pm

The Observer wrote:Even more to the point is the fact that there have been a number of court cases (some of which have been posted on Quatloos as examples) where the tax protester failed making that argument. PD will never be able to show that the argument has prevailed and been upheld by other courts.

You are forgetting about all those super secret legal cases where the FMOTL always wins. However, TPTB know the power of these cases, and prevent their publication. That way, they can prevent others finding out the magic words to use, in order to win.

:sarcasmon:
The Hardest Thing in the World to Understand is Income Taxes -Albert Einstein

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose - As sung by Janis Joplin (and others) Written by Kris Kristofferson and Fred Foster.

User avatar
Cpt Banjo
Fretful leader of the Quat Quartet
Posts: 709
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 8:56 pm
Location: Usually between the first and twelfth frets

Re: Erroneous Congressman's Letter or Erroneous Interpretation?

Postby Cpt Banjo » Wed Dec 09, 2015 11:39 pm

NYGman wrote:That way, they can prevent others finding out the magic words to use, in order to win.


Klaatu barada nikto?

Razbanyi siati benefuchi?

Bibbidy bobbidy boo?

Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius?

Yabba dabba doo?

Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin?
"Run get the pitcher, get the baby some beer." Rev. Gary Davis

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5723
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Erroneous Congressman's Letter or Erroneous Interpretation?

Postby Burnaby49 » Thu Dec 10, 2015 12:56 am

Cpt Banjo wrote:
NYGman wrote:That way, they can prevent others finding out the magic words to use, in order to win.


Klaatu barada nikto?

Razbanyi siati benefuchi?

Bibbidy bobbidy boo?

Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius?

Yabba dabba doo?

Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin?


Call this a list? You left out Guabi Guabi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVcV38R7oxM
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

User avatar
Dr. Caligari
J.D., Miskatonic University School of Crickets
Posts: 1515
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 11:02 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Erroneous Congressman's Letter or Erroneous Interpretation?

Postby Dr. Caligari » Thu Dec 10, 2015 2:18 am

No, the magic words are "gey kokken offen yahm."
Dr. Caligari
(Du musst Caligari werden!)

User avatar
Cpt Banjo
Fretful leader of the Quat Quartet
Posts: 709
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 8:56 pm
Location: Usually between the first and twelfth frets

Re: Erroneous Congressman's Letter or Erroneous Interpretation?

Postby Cpt Banjo » Thu Dec 10, 2015 5:07 am

Burnaby49 wrote:You left out Guabi Guabi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVcV38R7oxM


I first heard that tune done by Jim Kweskin and Fritz Richmond about 40 years ago. Fritz is no longer with us, but here's Kweskin and Geoff Muldaur doing it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUeuj41dXF4
"Run get the pitcher, get the baby some beer." Rev. Gary Davis

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5723
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Erroneous Congressman's Letter or Erroneous Interpretation?

Postby Burnaby49 » Thu Dec 10, 2015 6:15 am

Cpt Banjo wrote:
Burnaby49 wrote:You left out Guabi Guabi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVcV38R7oxM


I first heard that tune done by Jim Kweskin and Fritz Richmond about 40 years ago. Fritz is no longer with us, but here's Kweskin and Geoff Muldaur doing it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUeuj41dXF4


Great guitar work but, in my opinion, no version that I've heard equals that of Arlo in Amigos. He puts his heart into it.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

User avatar
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 3526
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 7:02 am
Contact:

Re: Erroneous Congressman's Letter or Erroneous Interpretation?

Postby grixit » Thu Dec 10, 2015 6:27 am

Et In Arcadia Ego

Abracadabra

Open Sesame

Joe sent me

There is nothing more useless than a lock with a voice print

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

42

Ooo eee,ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang
Ooo eee ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla bing bang...
I voted for Hillary, and i didn't even get a stupid tshirt!

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6338
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Erroneous Congressman's Letter or Erroneous Interpretation?

Postby wserra » Thu Dec 10, 2015 11:30 am

Honi soit la vache qui rit.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 6643
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:48 am
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Erroneous Congressman's Letter or Erroneous Interpretation?

Postby The Observer » Thu Dec 10, 2015 5:19 pm

You are all wrong:

Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul,
Ash nazg thrakatulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul


But you need to be near an active volcano vent when you recite it.
"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

Arthur Rubin
Tupa-O-Quatloosia
Posts: 1447
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Brea, CA

Re: Erroneous Congressman's Letter or Erroneous Interpretation?

Postby Arthur Rubin » Thu Dec 10, 2015 8:12 pm

The Observer wrote:You are all wrong:

Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul,
Ash nazg thrakatulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul


But you need to be near an active volcano vent when you recite it.


I thought that required some mythical beings, such as a virgin.
Arthur Rubin, unemployed tax preparer and aerospace engineer
ImageJoin the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!

Butterflies are free. T-shirts are $19.95 $24.95 $29.95

User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 6643
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:48 am
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Erroneous Congressman's Letter or Erroneous Interpretation?

Postby The Observer » Thu Dec 10, 2015 8:14 pm

Arthur Rubin wrote:
The Observer wrote:You are all wrong:

Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul,
Ash nazg thrakatulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul


But you need to be near an active volcano vent when you recite it.


I thought that required some mythical beings, such as a virgin.


I don't recall Sauron using a virgin.
"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


Return to “US”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest