Robert A. McNeil

Quixote
Quatloosian Master of Deception
Posts: 1542
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 2:00 am
Location: Sanhoudalistan

Robert A. McNeil

Post by Quixote »

On the Codebusters forum, in a thread titled "Rober [sic] A. McNeil v. IRS: Fighting a 7602-Summons", TDL posted
I learned about this case (and Bob's blog) a few weeks ago. A fascinating story, an impeccably-kept Record, and a win against a DOJester in a Texas USDC -- wow. After much reading, I got Bob's permission to crosspost his story here. For us all to learn from, and to possibly glean some elements from his impressive/heroic/methodical effort to stand up, AND WIN.
RAM's secret strategy for fighting a 7602 summons, according to the court order he posted, is to give in. The DOJ's suit was dismissed on its own motion because McNeil had surrendered the documents. This is probably very old news; the case was dismissed in 2008.
"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
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Robert A. McNeil

Post by Famspear »

I ran into something on the internet about this guy about a month ago. Looks like he's been contending with windmills for years. Used to live in Houston, apparently now in Austin. He has a web site where he has posted what appears to be every scrap of paper he's ever received from the Evil Government. Really smart guy; he doesn't even bother to redact his social security number from the materials he posts.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Imalawman
Enchanted Consultant of the Red Stapler
Posts: 1808
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: Formerly in a cubicle by the window where I could see the squirrels, and they were married.

Re: Robert A. McNeil

Post by Imalawman »

Urgent news alert!!! Bob is running for president in....2016. Press Release

He's getting head start on everyone. Smart.
"Some people are like Slinkies ... not really good for anything, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down the stairs" - Unknown
Arthur Rubin
Tupa-O-Quatloosia
Posts: 1753
Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 11:02 pm
Location: Brea, CA

Re: Robert A. McNeil

Post by Arthur Rubin »

Imalawman wrote:Urgent news alert!!! Bob is running for president in....2016.
But ... but ... is he a natural-born citizen? He was born in Arkansas, which may not be part of the United States. :lol:
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
Quixote
Quatloosian Master of Deception
Posts: 1542
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 2:00 am
Location: Sanhoudalistan

Re: Robert A. McNeil

Post by Quixote »

His first act as president will be to issue a "Proclamation of Freedom" in which he pardons all tax cheats and disbands both the IRS and the Dept. of Justice. The proclamation was apparently intended to be issued after his win in the 2012 election; it's dated Jan. 20, 2013.
"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
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: Robert A. McNeil

Post by LPC »

Quixote wrote:RAM's secret strategy for fighting a 7602 summons, according to the court order he posted, is to give in. The DOJ's suit was dismissed on its own motion because McNeil had surrendered the documents. This is probably very old news; the case was dismissed in 2008.
Just ran across a link to a "Freedom School" version of the story, in which McNeil claims that he never provided anything to the IRS, and that they backed down after seeing his "brief."
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.
User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 7502
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:48 pm
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Robert A. McNeil

Post by The Observer »

ROBERT A. MCNEIL,
Plaintiff
v.
COMMISSIONER, INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.,
Defendants

Release Date: APRIL 12, 2016



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MEMORANDUM OPINION

(April 12, 2016)

Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"), the Attorney General, officials of the IRS and the Department of Justice, and other related persons from taking certain enumerated actions regarding the collection of taxes. All of these actions pertain to activities undertaken by the IRS or the Department of Justice in circumstances in which a person does not file a tax return. Before the Court is the United States' [4] Motion to Dismiss, filed on behalf of all of the defendants. Upon consideration of the pleadings, 1 the relevant legal authorities, and the record for purposes of this motion, the Court GRANTS Defendants' [4] Motion to Dismiss. As explained further below, the Court concludes that it has no jurisdiction over this action in light of the Anti-Injunction Act. Therefore, the Court concludes that there is no need to reach Defendants' other arguments in favor of dismissal. Furthermore, the Court concludes that there is no basis for Plaintiff's [8] Motion to Resolve Fact Disputes. That motion is denied, as well, and this case is dismissed in its entirety.

I. BACKGROUND

The Court limits its presentation of the background to the key facts that are necessary for the Court's resolution of the fundamental issue presented in the pending motion: whether the Court is deprived of jurisdiction over this action in light of the jurisdiction-stripping provision of the Anti-Injunction Act.

A. Statutory and Regulatory Scheme

Pursuant to Internal Revenue Code section 6020, "f any person fails to make any return required by any internal revenue law or regulation made thereunder at the time prescribed therefor, or makes, willfully or otherwise, a false or fraudulent return, the Secretary [of the Treasury] shall make such return from his own knowledge and from such information as he can obtain through testimony or otherwise." 26 U.S.C. section 6020(b)(1). Furthermore, "[a]ny return so made and subscribed by the Secretary shall be prima facie good and sufficient for all legal purposes." Id. section 6020(b)(2). In other words, if a person fails to file a tax return, the Government is required to produce a substitute return on behalf of the taxpayer, and that return may be used for other tax-related purposes. See Byers v. C.I.R., 740 F.3d 668, 671 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 232, reh'g denied, 135 S. Ct. 887 (2014). Among other such purposes, substitute returns may be used for the assessment of deficiencies against the taxpayers. See id. ("If a taxpayer fails to file a return, the IRS may create a substitute tax form under 26 U.S.C. section 6020(b) and file a notice of deficiency for the total amount it calculates as due.").

The regulations promulgated by the Department of the Treasury further elaborate this scheme. Specifically, "f no return is made, or if the return . . . does not show any tax, for the purpose of the definition 'the amount shown as the tax by the taxpayer upon his return' shall be considered as zero." 26 C.F.R. section 301.6211-1(a). As a result, "if no deficiencies with respect to the tax have been assessed, or collected without assessment, and no rebates with respect to the tax have been made, the deficiency is the amount of the income tax imposed by subtitle A, the estate tax imposed by chapter 11, the gift tax imposed by chapter 12, or any excise tax imposed by chapter 41, 42, 43, or 44." Id. In short, if no return has been filed, no deficiencies have already been assessed or collected, and no tax has been paid via a rebate, the amount of the deficiency -- i.e., the amount owed by the taxpayer -- is the amount of taxes due that is calculated by the IRS. The IRS performs this calculation by creating a substitute return under section 6020(b).

The applicable regulations further lay out the process for producing these substitute returns. The regulations provide that the IRS and its agents "may make the return by gathering information and making computations through electronic, automated or other means to make a determination of the taxpayer's tax liability." 26 C.F.R. section 301.6020-1(b)(1). The regulations then set out the parameters of the process for creating such a return:

(2) Form of the return. A document (or set of documents)
signed by the Commissioner or other authorized Internal
Revenue Officer or employee shall be a return for
a person described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
if the document (or set of documents) identifies
the taxpayer by name and taxpayer identification
number, contains sufficient information from which
to compute the taxpayer's tax liability, and purports
to be a return. A Form 13496, "IRC Section 6020(b)
Certification," or any other form that an authorized
Internal Revenue Officer or employee signs and uses
to identify a set of documents containing the information
set forth in this paragraph as a section 6020(b)
return, and the documents identified, constitute
a return under section 6020(b). A return may be signed
by the name or title of an Internal Revenue Officer
or employee being handwritten, stamped, typed, printed
or otherwise mechanically affixed to the return,
so long as that name or title was placed on the document
to signify that the Internal Revenue Officer or employee
adopted the document as a return for the taxpayer.
The document and signature may be in written or electronic
form.

26 C.F.R. section 301.6020-1. Finally, as stated above, returns prepared in this manner by the IRS are "good and sufficient for all legal purposes." 26 C.F.R. section 301.6020-1(b)(3).

B. Plaintiff's Claims and Relief Sought

In his Complaint, Plaintiff essentially claims that the IRS falsifies records in the process of creating substitute returns and that the Government then uses the allegedly falsified records in taking legal action against Plaintiff and others. Plaintiff claims that the Government's actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. section 702, and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court reserves any further presentation of facts underlying these claims, to the extent that they are material to the Court's resolution of issues raised by the pending motion, for the discussion below. However, the Court presents in full the relief requested by Plaintiff through the Complaint, as it pertains directly to the legal question before the Court. Plaintiff requests that the Court:

74. Enjoin IRS from presuming, in any case involving
1040 income taxes, that a zero amount due was shown
on an imaginary return pursuant to any regulation,
including section 301.6211, or making any other improper
assumptions/presumptions concerning Plaintiff as
justification for falsifying IRS internal records;

75. Enjoin the Commissioner, his representatives,
agents, employees, attorneys, those persons in active
concert or participation with him, from directly
or indirectly:

a. Falsifying/manipulating, in the future, any computer
system of records such as the IMF, NMF, AIMS, BMF,
CADE2, (for examples), which might be or become associated
with Plaintiff, by using any procedure associated with
requests to IRS to perform a substitute for return
at the request of a victim, when no such election was
made, which precise act the Commissioner's employees
committed, resulting in damage to Plaintiff;

b. Falsifying/manipulating, in the future, any computer
system of records to show IRS supposedly filed a substitute
for return on a certain date, when no such substitute
for return was actually prepared on that date, which
precise act IRS committed, resulting in damage to Plaintiff;

c. Making or inferring in any single or series of
"certifications" that might reasonably be, or become,
associated with Plaintiff, the false claims that a
Substitute For Return was supposedly prepared on a
date when it was not, which act the Commissioner may
perform to damage Plaintiff, as he has concerning others;

d. Creating "self-authenticating" certifications concerning
records he maintains regarding Plaintiff to prevent
IRS employees or expert witnesses from being cross-examined
during tax court or district court cases regarding
any system of IRS records, any individual income tax
return, or any issue related thereto, which precise
act the Commissioner commits routinely;

e. Knowingly using any falsified system of records
which might be, or might reasonably become, associated
with Plaintiff, for any purpose whatsoever, which
precise act the Commissioner committed, resulting in
damage to Plaintiff;

f. Creating or using a "dummy", blank pretended return
to form the basis for later pretension of making "changes"
thereto, to circumvent the Defendants' lack of authority
to perform substitute 1040 income tax returns;

76. Enjoin the Attorney General of the United States,
her representatives, agents, employees, attorneys,
those persons in active concert or participation
with her, from directly or indirectly:

a. Using any fraudulent "self-authenticating" IRS document
to prevent the cross-examination of IRS witnesses concerning
1.) authority of IRS to take any action, 2.) authority
of any individual IRS employee to take any action,
or 3.) accuracy of internal records maintained by IRS
concerning individuals and the individual income tax;

b. Instructing United States Attorneys to conceal exculpatory
evidence in IRS files concerning so-called non-filers,
by using "self-authenticating", but falsified, documents,
provided by IRS;

c. Falsely stating or inferring in any document submitted,
or to be submitted, to a United States Court, in cases
involving "income tax non-filers", the false claim
that the authority Congress delegated to the Secretary
at section 6020(b) extends beyond its limitation to
employment, excise and partnership taxes;

d. Submitting in any case before a United States Court,
whether judicial or administrative, hearsay concerning
IRS internal procedures which was procured by fraud
of the IRS on United States tax court judges, which
hearsay contradicts IRS actual internal practices;

77. Enjoin any artifice, scheme, device, sham, presumption
or procedure by IRS or DoJ as part of any conspiracy
to bypass the rights of individuals in connection
with income taxes, in violation of 28 USC section
241;

78. Grant Plaintiff such other relief, including
court costs and cost of researching the scheme, as
is just and equitable
.

Pl.'s Compl. paragraphs 74-78.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

"Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction" and can adjudicate only those cases entrusted to them by the Constitution or an Act of Congress. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The Court begins with the presumption that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over a case. Id. To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over its claim. Moms Against Mercury v. FDA, 483 F.3d 824, 828 (D.C. Cir. 2007). In determining whether there is jurisdiction, the Court may "consider the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record, or the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of disputed facts." Coal. for Underground Expansion v. Mineta, 333 F.3d 193, 198 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). "At the motion to dismiss stage, counseled complaints, as well as pro se complaints, are to be construed with sufficient liberality to afford all possible inferences favorable to the pleader on allegations of fact." Settles v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 429 F.3d 1098, 1106 (D.C. Cir. 2005). "Although a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in the complaint when reviewing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)," the factual allegations in the complaint "will bear closer scrutiny in resolving a 12(b)(1) motion than in resolving a 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim." Wright v. Foreign Serv. Grievance Bd., 503 F. Supp. 2d 163, 170 (D.D.C. 2007) (citations omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

Defendants argue that this Court has no jurisdiction over any of the putative claims in this case because of the jurisdiction-stripping provision of the Anti-Injunction Act. As explained below, the Court agrees with Defendants that this Court is deprived of jurisdiction over this action in its entirety by that statute. Therefore, the Court does not reach the Government's alternative argument that Plaintiff has no standing to bring this action. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 584-85 (1999) (law does not require particular sequencing of jurisdictional issues). Moreover, in light of this conclusion, the Court may not address the Government's remaining argument that, even if the Court had jurisdiction over this case, the Complaint would fail to state a claim. See Anderson v. Carter, 802 F.3d 4, 9-10 (D.C. Cir. 2015) ("[O]nce we have established that we have no subject-matter jurisdiction, we can proceed no further.").

Under the Anti-Injunction Act, except as explicitly provided by the statute, "no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person." 2 26 U.S.C. section 7421(a). "The manifest purpose of section 7421(a) is to permit the United States to assess and collect taxes alleged to be due without judicial intervention, and to require that the legal right to the disputed sums be determined in a suit for refund." Enochs v. Williams Packing & Nav. Co., 370 U.S. 1, 7 (1962). "As the Supreme Court explained, the provision reflected 'appropriate concern about the . . . danger that a multitude of spurious suits, or even suits with possible merit, would so interrupt the free flow of revenues as to jeopardize the Nation's fiscal stability.' " Cohen v. United States, 650 F.3d 717, 724 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting Alexander v. "Americans United" Inc., 416 U.S. 752, 769 (1974) (Blackmun, J., dissenting)).

While the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar all legal claims pertaining to taxation, it does bar "those suits seeking to restrain the assessment or collection of taxes." Id. (quoting Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725, 737 (1974)). Framing a claim that aims to restrain the assessment or collection of taxes in constitutional terms does not open the courthouse door to such claims. See We the People Found., Inc. v. United States, 485 F.3d 140, 143 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (no jurisdiction over claim that seeks to "restrain the Government's collection of taxes, which is precisely what the Anti-Injunction Act prohibits, notwithstanding that plaintiffs have couched their tax collection claim in constitutional terms.").

This Anti-Injunction Act directly strips this Court of jurisdiction over this case. As the Court's recitation of the relief sought by Plaintiff above indicates, Plaintiff seeks to restrain various activities taken by the IRS, the Department of Justice, and associated government officials to facilitate the assessment and collection of taxes from individuals who have not filed tax returns. Plaintiff claims that he is not seeking to restrain the use of substitute returns, wholesale. Instead, he argues that he only seeks to restrain the particular actions taken by the Government to implement this scheme, which Plaintiff characterizes as fraudulent. See Pl.'s Opp'n at 8 ("Said differently, if Plaintiff WERE seeking to prevent IRS from performing substitute 1040 income tax returns, or using valid certifications, the AJA WOULD apply to bar the case. But since he only seeks to enjoin the precise falsifications identified above concerning IRS' IMF records and public facing certifications, the AJA has no arguable application whatsoever to this case."). But any such differences are of no consequence. All the actions of which Plaintiff complains and that are the bases for Plaintiff's request for relief are actions taken in the process of assessing and collecting taxes: from the presumption that the amount of taxes paid by a non-filer is zero, Compl. paragraph 74, to falsifying and/or modifying the IRS computer record system used to generate substitute returns, id. paragraph 75, to using those allegedly falsified returns and certifications in proceedings related to the assessment and collection of taxes, id. paragraph 76. In light of the relief requested, it is clear that this suit is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act in its entirety.

Nor does Plaintiff's claim that he only seeks to restrain unlawful activities constitute any answer to Defendants' jurisdictional argument. The Anti-Injunction Act strips this Court of jurisdiction to consider claims that seek to restrain the "assessment or collection" of taxes even if allegedly illegal acts serve as the bases for such a claim. Indeed, this very effect is the essence of a jurisdictional provision such as the one found in the Anti-Injunction Act. It strips a court of subject matter jurisdiction regardless of the supposed merits of a plaintiff's statutory or constitutional claim.

Indeed, in what appear to be a similar challenge to the creation and use of substitute returns, another district court judge also concluded that the Anti-Injunction Act withdrew the district court's subject matter jurisdiction. See Ellis v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue Serv., 67 F. Supp. 3d 325, 333 (D.D.C. 2014), aff'd sub nom. Ellis v. C.I.R., 622 F. App'x 2 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (Mem.). Furthermore, the judgment of the district court was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in an unpublished opinion. The Court of Appeals' decision rested wholly on its conclusion that "Appellant has not shown that the district court erred in concluding that his claims are barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, the purpose of which is to allow the government to assess and collect taxes without judicial interference." Ellis, 622 F. App'x at 3 (citations omitted). Insofar as Plaintiff argues that Ellis included different claims than those in this case, the Court notes that it appears, based on the district court's decision Ellis, that the facts and the claims in the two cases have a high degree of similarity. See Ellis, 67 F. Supp. 3d at 328-29, 332-33. In any event, any differences between the two cases are ultimately immaterial because the Court concludes the Anti-Injunction Act strips this Court of jurisdiction over all of the claims in this case.

Therefore, the Court dismisses this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the Court does not reach Defendants' alternative arguments as to why dismissal of this case is required. Because the putative factual disputes raised by Plaintiff [8] Motion to Resolve Fact Disputes are of no consequence to the resolution of the jurisdictional issues before the Court, the Court denies that motion. Concomitantly, the Court denies as moot Defendants' [9][10] Motion to Strike Improper Surreply, through which Defendants seek to strike the Plaintiff's submission filed under the caption "Motion to Resolve Fact Disputes."

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants' [4] Motion to Dismiss; DENIES Plaintiff's [8] Motion to Resolve Fact Disputes; and DENIES AS MOOT Defendants' [9][10] Motion to Strike Improper Surreply. This case is dismissed in its entirety.

An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

DATED: April 12, 2016

Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
United States District Judge

FOOTNOTES:


/1/ The Court's consideration has focused on the following documents:


º Pl.'s Original Complaint ("Compl."), ECF No. 1;


º United States' Mot. to Dismiss ("Defs.' Mot."), ECF No. 4;


º Pl.'s Opp'n to Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss ("Pl.'s Opp'n"), ECF No. 6 and


º United States' Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss ("Defs.' Reply"), ECF No. 7.


In an exercise of its discretion, the Court finds that holding oral argument in this action would not be of assistance in rendering a decision. See LCvR 7(f).


/22/ Plaintiff does not claim that this action falls under one of the statutorily enumerated exceptions to the jurisdiction-stripping provision.
"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
Jeffrey
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 3076
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 1:16 am

Re: Robert A. McNeil

Post by Jeffrey »

McNeil will be the guest on tonight's Angela Stark talkshoe internet radio show.

Will report back if anything interesting is said.
Jeffrey
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 3076
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 1:16 am

Re: Robert A. McNeil

Post by Jeffrey »

Okay so I took notes on the show:

Bob and Michael Ellis are in cahoots, Ellis is discussed over in this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=51&t=10216

This hinted at in the court paperwork but confirmed tonight:
Indeed, in what appear to be a similar challenge to the creation and use of substitute returns, another district court judge also concluded that the Anti-Injunction Act withdrew the district court's subject matter jurisdiction. See Ellis v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue Serv., 67 F. Supp. 3d 325, 333 (D.D.C. 2014), aff'd sub nom. Ellis v. C.I.R., 622 F. App'x 2 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (Mem.).
The reason why the cases were similar is because they were working together.

Biggest bombshell of the night in my opinion is that Bob and Mike were involved in helping Bill Bailey with his tax evasion case, discussed here:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdca/pr/lo ... -1-million

Early in the show we were treated to the old "I don't file tax returns because the 5th amendment" argument debunked in Evans' Tax protester FAQ:

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#5th

Then there was a journey down the rabbit hole of IMF conspiracy theories.

Then they reiterated their claim that the IRS is committing a crime by preparing SFR's and announcing their intention to keep pushing their case.

And Bob ended by linking his website:

http://www.ram-v-irs.com/blog_wp/