Airline pilot CtCer (continued)

[Famspear]

At losthorizons, pilot Bob Welzel now writes:

I have come to the conclusion that the IRS levy really isn't about the money. They want COMPLIANCE. Other forms of levy and garnishment are always somehow limited. Most are limited to a max of 15% and most states impose an additional limitation of a maximum of 25% total garnishment. Those levies are about the money and the respective creditors want their money back so they are willing to accept smaller amounts for longer periods to get it back.

The IRSS, however, takes it all (accept the $350 they graciously allow you to have). I can'e [sic] even pay my electric bill with what the [sic] give me, so it leads me to believe that what they really want is to BREAK you and get you to come whimpering back begging for forgiveness, which they will gladly grant if you promise to never be a bad boy again.

It is remarkable to me that so many people are willing to accept this type of fascist tyranny. Until we start getting enough people to stand up and tell the IRS to cease and desist, the behavior will continue.

One thing that might work is a work stoppage. If you can get sufficient people at work to protest and picket your company for a couple of days they might get the message that they can in fact challenge the IRS. I suspect that any company that tells the IRS they will not levy without a COURT ORDER, would simply be left alone. In my case that is really all I am asking from my company; just challenge the validity of the IRS's assertion, but they won't.

Additionally, you probably need to formalize your W-4 termination agreement. Some will argue that my [sic] consenting to the W-4 you've consented to the levy. Submit to your company a termination letter (email me if you need help). Then submit a bill to your company for services rendered[,] stating how much they promised to pay versus how much they paid. These are all precursors to filing a lawsuit against the company for failure to pay.

I am in that process now...and, if you company fires you, go to the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] for wrongful termination.

Collectively we all need to make it VERY VERY expensive for companies to comply with the IRS. We want companies to tell the IRS that this is between you and my private worker...leave me out of it.

Just some thoughts, but remember Tyranny Demands Resistance

Eventually I will get the web site fully up and running and provide various information and products to people so that they can effectively resist tyranny.

Oh, yeah, one last thing. Start figuring out anything you can about the RO [Revenue Officer]. Get pictures if you can...post them at post offices as an IRS Colaborator [sic]. Take out cheap classified ads calling for people to boycott them.

Cheers,
Bob

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=832

(bolding added).

[jkeeb]

I have come to the conclusion that the IRS levy really isn't about the money. They want COMPLIANCE.

This guy got the message rather quickly.

[Nikki]

Has anyone else considered that FAA and TSA might consider this nut a security risk?

Should such an erratic, mentally unbalanced person really continue to be permited to fly?

We shall see.

[ASITStands]

In an earlier post he said he had received a "new" motion and needed to review it. Looking at the docket, it's a motion for summary judgment, so his vaunted win about which he bragged to the Lost Horizon 'Crackheads' is rapidly disappearing and may be gone soon.

Fame and notoriety is such a fleeting thing in the TP world!

[Famspear]

Bob Welzel's latest blather:

Hi Janiece,

How are things going (besides the irritation from our fascist friends)?

First, you must expect that regardless of what you say in response to the 3176, they will not appropriately answer.

My guess is that the 3176 comes out of Ogden and they are probably instructed to lie, cheat and steal as a matter of policy and will not answer regardless.

Having said that, you must look down the road. I am in tax court over my CIVPEN's and have filed a motion for summary judgement.

Should the judge rule in my favor, then I think I am poised for a mandamus. My motion focused on two principle [sic] issues. First the IRC only allows one penalty per document; I received 4 for each document -- two for me and two for my wife.

Welzel has lost me here. The Internal Revenue Code allows the assertion of only one penalty per document? I'm not even sure what he's referring to here. What "document"? (The tax return? The penalty notice?)

Welzel continues:

Secondly, the statute REQUIRES them to prove the allegation. For 6702 penalties, the burden of proof is on the Secretary (I think that is 6703).

So, with all the other things you might state in the response letter, at the very least you need to demand they comply with 6703 and prove (rather than merely assert) their claim.

I think this is important, because it is my conviction that our 1040X's have some small defect causing them to be rejected.

Understatement of the year.

Welzel continues:

I think this is why some are accepted and some are not. If the problem is because I failed to dot some "i" or cross some "t" I want them to tell me what is wrong with it. They, of course, refuse to and simply reject the entire thing as "frivolous."

My submision to the court was simple and only involved facts not disputed. The Rules of Procedure compel the judge to grant my motion and the only way the IRS can answer the motion is to explain why the return is frivolous in the first place, which is exactly what I want anyways. Then it can be argued that it meets the statuatory [sic] requirement or it doesn't.

Also, if the tax court judge fails to act on the motion you have a cause of action in district court.

In the final analysis, you need to view your letter as one in a series of steps leading to a court case. Know what will win your court case and start asking for those things in every letter.

BTW, I disagree that a class action suit is needed. The IRS only needs one judge or one misspoken argument to get the whole thing to collapse. Also, where do you find a lawyer willing to represent us. Althernatively if we all file pro se actions, the IRS needs to answer each and every case, and if they are all filed in the DC circuit, then they can be made applicable to the entire country (although I am not certain about how that works).

Cheers,
Bob

(bolding added)

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... =7153#7153

[ASITStands]

I believe he's referring to civil penalties filed under IRC 6702, and I believe the reason he's received two for himself and two for his wife is due to penalties having been imposed for filing a CtC return then other penalties imposed for filing a frivolous response/submission.

Hope that's clear.

Then after Letter 3176C [notice of imposing the frivolous penalty], he likely received CP-15 [civil penalty assessment] and the normal course of collection notices [CP-504, Letter 1058].

He was then given a CDP hearing, and now, he's appealed the decision in tax court. His case in tax court is Docket #012668-08L, so it's definitely an appeal of a notice of determination.

His idea about one penalty per document has to do with one penalty for filing a frivolous return, but likely, he received another when he submitted a frivolous submission. And, then multiple that by husband and wife submitting separate responses, and you have four.

His second idea that the statute requires them to prove the allegation will be abundantly fulfilled when Respondent files its notice of objection. He's right that he can challenge a frivolous penalty in tax court, as we've discussed before [with 'SteveSy'].

The motion to dismiss in the DC case is based on failure to state a claim.

Defendant United States argues the case was previously dismissed because the court found it was sufficiently similar to an earlier case [Lindsey v. United States, 448 F.Supp., 2d 37 (D.D.C. 2006)] dismissed by being barred by the Declaratory Judgment Act and dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, which is the case here.

The case was reopened on a motion for relief by Plaintiff Welzel, and the Court promised a memorandum opinion, which has not appeared. The claim for damages was reinstated.

Welzel asks for: 1) a determination that the Internal Revenue Service disregarded various statutes and regulations; 2) damages in accordance with section 7433 and other damages as are just and proper; and 3) an order for the Internal Revenue Service to “amend the reprehensible, egregious, and vexations behavior.”

2/ Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges 25 specific acts which they claim “disregarded” the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code indicated in parenthesis below:

1. failed to answer plaintiffs’ correspondence (26 C.F.R. § 601-702(c));
2. failed to respond to plaintiffs’ request for documentation;
3. improperly disclosed confidential income tax information(26 U.S.C. § 6103(a));
4. failed to make an assessment of taxes and penalties (26 U.S.C. § 6201(a));
5. failed to make an assessment within the time required (26 U.S.C. § 6202);
6. failed to assess taxes within 3 years (26 U.S.C. § 6501(a));
7. failed to record an assessment (26 U.S.C. § 6203);
8. failed to furnish plaintiffs with copies of forms 23C, records of assessment (26 U.S.C. § 6203);
9. attempted to collect sums greater than assessed (26 U.S.C. § 7214(a));
10. failed to return taxes to plaintiffs (26 U.S.C. § 6402);
11. failed to send plaintiffs a 90-day notice of deficiency (26 U.S.C. § 6212);
12. failed to notify plaintiffs of the last day to petition the Tax Court (26 U.S.C. § 6213(a));
13. failed to notify plaintiffs that notices of lien were filed (26 U.S.C. § 6320);
14. filed an invalid and unlawful notice of tax lien (26 U.S.C. § 6321);
15. failed to release liens (26 U.S.C. § 6325);
16. failed to suspend interest and penalties (26 U.S.C. § 6404(g));
17. failed to include necessary information in notices of lien (26 U.S.C. § 6751(a));
18. failed to verify that a supervisor approved penalty determinations (26 U.S.C. § 6751(b)(1);
19. refused to produce evidence of penalties and additions (26 U.S.C. § 7491(c);
20. conducted a “presumed financial status audit” (26 U.S.C. § 7602(a));
21. refused to prove items of income (26 U.S.C. § 7491(b));
22. failed to send plaintiffs a demand for payment before levy (26 U.S.C. § 6331(a))
23. failed to send plaintiffs a 30-day notice (26 U.S.C. § 6331(d)(1)(2);
24. abrogated plaintiffs right to an installment agreement (26 U.S.C. § 6159);
25. failed to comply with the Federal Records Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3101, the National Archives Act (44 U.S.C. § 3106) and federal regulations at 36 C.F.R. Part 1222.2644096.1

Defendant argues all but five of the allegations are not cognizable under IRC 7433. And, the remaining five are too conclusory, or not specific enough to satisfy a claim of damage. They allege Plaintiff has presented no facts upon which a claim for relief could be granted.

It doesn't look good for Plaintiff Welzel's IRC 7433 suit. Just my opinion of course.

[Nikki]

IRS attorney handling Mr. Welzel's case has received a referral to the LoserHeads forum and Welzel's threads in specific.

He said that his case will now be much easier since he (1) is aware of every single aspect of Welzel's strategy and (2) will be able to introduce the forum into evidence as support for Welzel's evasion tactics.

In addition, his DoJ counterpart is patiently waiting his turn to institute criminal proceedings, based on Welzel's confessions on the forum.

I never thought I'd see anything easier than shooting fish in a barrel.