Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

I AM KEENLY AWARE OF THE HISTORY OF SLAVERY.
GiveMeLiberty.org ^ | February 2002 | Sherry Peel Jackson

Posted on 03/06/2002 7:46:33 PM PST by one2many

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-146 last
To: Middle Man

I file a return every year.

You file a return supporting a hoax? Shame on you.

101 posted on 03/14/2002 1:13:47 PM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Middle Man
I like the idea of the NRST. Like you just stated, the CPA and tax-attorneys are making money hand-over-fist due to the complexities of the regulations. Also look at the monies spent by corporations to shelter money and avoid taxes. Even mom-and-pop operations must devote an inordinate amount of time preparing payrolls and meeting federal/state/local guidelines. The people are not represented in Congress - corporations are.
102 posted on 03/14/2002 1:16:43 PM PST by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Middle Man

You make half-baked assumptions, then go off on tangents that take you in the wrong direction.

I make no assumptions whatsoever.

You indicated your lawyer didn't know how to answer your questions properly. Figured you could clue him in, by presenting him with a printed copy of my reply #99.

According to your own claims, he was having a hard time explaining things to you properly.

The last year I used a lawyer ... He became very vague and muttered something like, "Well, taxes have been around since Julius Caesar". By the end of our (last) meeting he couldn't even look me in the eyes anymore.

We really should not leave our lawyers in such sad condition when we can do something to alleviate there afflictions. I mean the poor guy might be suffering from a severe case of insecurity or sump'n. You wouldn't want that would you, especially since you obviously know that one should file proper a tax return as you certainly do:

I file a return every year.

He might accidently not file a tax return, not knowing the score, and end up with a fine or worse. You wouldn't want that would you?

All that frenetic typing and html coding for naught. (sigh)

No problem at all I use a MicroSoft's WYSIWYG html editor, don't you? Just like using a electric typwriter and no problem at all. I do thank you for your concern however. That was kind.

103 posted on 03/14/2002 1:30:00 PM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: one2many

Where is paragraph A of the notice of intent to levy?

There is no paragraph "A" in a notice of Intent to levy, for the paragraphs contained in such a notice are not indexed nor are they required to be.

However, should you ever decide to actually understand subject sufficient to frame a proper question, you might want inquire as to the content of the statutes regarding due process and levy in tax collections under Title 26,(i.e. Internal Revenue Code).

For that:

Refer, Subchapter D Part I. & Part II, there lay the rules for Due Process & Levy in regards to tax collection according to your favorite Congress, enacted under the authority of the Constitution for the United States of America, Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1 and Article I Section 8 Clause 18. And in accord with

295 U.S. 247 (1935)

United States Codes

All that is necessary for your Notice of Intent to Levy is above. Lots of paragraph (a)s for yah there too. Pick whichever you would like.

104 posted on 03/14/2002 8:29:17 PM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
Come now geeze; you KNOW which paragraph A I mean.
The one on a "Notice of Intent to Levy".

Where is it?

105 posted on 03/15/2002 6:32:59 AM PST by one2many
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Middle Man
All that frenetic typing and html coding for naught. (sigh)

Don't think for a moment that geeze is huffing and puffing to get that stuff out. He has it saved in HTML for slapping on any thread like this. He is one good little old chien noire!

106 posted on 03/15/2002 6:35:47 AM PST by one2many
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: one2many
Bump for later reading, off to a meeting.
107 posted on 03/15/2002 6:36:31 AM PST by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
When former IRS agents testify before Congress and the American people that they routinely ignore and break the law -- preparing dummy returns, seizing private property without due process and committing mail fraud with bootleg notices -- they are admitting the tax collection system in this country is a criminal enterprise, a violation of the RICO statutes at the very least. I would be perfectly delighted not to file a return (even though it only takes me about 30 minutes), but the public is dealing with an agency no different from the Cosa Nostra.

Yes, I do file a return every year; I just don't give the government anything it can use against me. 'Nuff said. ;)

108 posted on 03/15/2002 6:41:11 AM PST by Middle Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: one2many
Yeah, I know. When you've seen the first of his posts, you've seen them all.
109 posted on 03/15/2002 6:43:18 AM PST by Middle Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
OK geeze, so after some 100 posts you STILL won't put up paragraph (a). So I will do it for you. Here goes:

§ 6331. Levy and distraint

(a) Authority of Secretary or delegate.—If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax. 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. If the Secretary makes a finding that the collection of such tax is in jeopardy, notice and demand for immediate payment of such tax may be made by tne Secretary and, upon failure or refusal to pay such tax, collection thereof by levy shall be lawful without regard to the 10-day period provided in this section.

So how does fedgov levy the average citizen who doesn't fall into any of those groups upon whom SPECIFIC authorization to levy is authorized?

110 posted on 03/15/2002 6:51:03 AM PST by one2many
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: one2many
I have an acquaintance whose employer received the fearsome Notice of Levy. He had already educated his boss on the fraudulent means the government uses to extort money from third parties such as your place of work. So his boss called the IRS contact and put him on speakerphone with my friend in the room. The boss asked, "Why is Paragraph A missing from the citation on the back of the notice?" The agent's response was a click and a dial tone.

Neither my friend nor his company has heard from the IRS since. 'Nuff said.

111 posted on 03/15/2002 6:53:30 AM PST by Middle Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
The reason I don't like the NRST -- or the flat tax, VAT, what have you -- is they are all just means of replacing revenue the government will lose once everyone realizes the "income" tax is a hoax. The NRST won't do anything to shrink the cancerous growth of government.
112 posted on 03/15/2002 7:03:47 AM PST by Middle Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Middle Man
Better tell "the geezer" about it.

All of that blather and he just
couldn't bring himself to talk about
"paragraph (a)", could he? (grin)

113 posted on 03/15/2002 7:21:40 AM PST by one2many
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Middle Man
You are precisely correct in your 112. Vote buying will probably not be ended by civilized means.
114 posted on 03/15/2002 7:23:41 AM PST by one2many
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Middle Man
I don't care to pay taxes either. And certainly not more than 10%. Unconstitutional expenditures must be eliminated (no pork - nothing unless it benefits EVERY American EQUALLY - national defense etc).

The fed had no legal authotity to force Georgians to subsidize the Big Dig in Massachusetts - originally $2.5 billion, now estimated to be $13.6 billion, and still not complete. Why should every other state be subsidizing this? What benefit will Florida receive?

Individuals vote - corporations don't. But who do politicians cater to? Why do companies contribute - to reduce their taxes or to encourage protection and subsidization. Enron et al donate to BOTH parties so that no matter who wins - they can tug on a few strings. Eliminate corporate taxes (they're just passed on to the consumer anyhow), and corporate donations.

Institute the NRST, and reduce the rate as programs are eliminated. Maybe then the politicians will respresent "the people".

115 posted on 03/15/2002 7:31:53 AM PST by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: one2many
Your question was, to be precise, "Where is paragraph A of the notice of intent to levy?"

The precise question you you are posing was properly answered by my reply #104.

However the following is the actual content of the body of The Notice of Intent to Levy taken from a website found with Google, as is all my material,

refer: http://altereduniv.com/IRS2.htm to see the full text containing header & enclosure list.

 

FINAL NOTICE
(NOTICE OF INTENT TO LEVY)
CERTIFIED MAIL	IMMEDIATE RESPONSE REQUIRED
Your Federal tax in still not paid.  we have previously sent you notices requesting
full payment for this overdue tax, but we have not received it. We may file a notice of 
Federal Tax Lien at any time to protect the government's interest.  That is a public 
notice to your creditors that the government has a right to your interests in your 
current assets,  including assets you acquire after we file a lien.
If we do not receive your full payment within 30 days from the date of this letter,
we may issue a levy without further notice to you.  This means the law allows us to 
seize your property or rights to property such as real estate and personal property
for example, automobile, and business assets)to collect the amount you owe.  We also 
may levy(take) your bank accounts, wages, commissions, and other income.  Please see 
the enclosed publication for additional information.
To prevent enforced collection action, send your full payment today.  Make your check 
or money order for the amount you owe payable to the Internal Revenue Service.  Write 
your social security number or employer identification number on your payment.  Then 
please send your payment to us with a copy of this letter in the enclosed envelope.
If you recently paid this or if you cannot pay it, call us immediately at the telephone 
number at the top of this letter.
	Form	    Tax	    Assessed Amount Unpaid	   Additional
	Number	   Period	       from Prior Notices                    Penalty & Interest          Amount you owe
				





NOTE. The assessed amount unpaid from prior notices may include tax, penalties, and 
interest you still owe us. It also should reflect any credits and payments we received from
 you since the last notice was sent
Enclosures.
Envelope
Copy of this Letter
 Pub. 586A or 594
31 Hopkins Plaza, Baltimore, MD 21201           Letter 1058(DO) (Rev. 11-91) 


	Internal Revenue Service	Department of the Treasury

                                             District                   Baltimore District
                                             Director

 

You will note, NO PARAGRAPH A is in the Notice of Intent to Levy.

Nor is any such labeling of paragraphs required, as I stated very clearly.

This is the subparagraph of the statute governing what is in the Notice of Intent to Levy.

26 USC Section 6331. Levy and distraint(d)(4) Information included with notice
The notice required under paragraph (1) shall include a brief statement which sets forth in simple and nontechnical terms -

(A) the provisions of this title relating to levy and sale of property,

(B) the procedures applicable to the levy and sale of property under this title,

(C) the administrative appeals available to the taxpayer with respect to such levy and sale and the procedures relating to such appeals,

(D) the alternatives available to taxpayers which could prevent levy on the property (including installment agreements under section 6159),

(E) the provisions of this title relating to redemption of property and release of liens on property, and

(F) the procedures applicable to the redemption of property and the release of a lien on property under this title.

No requirement to label paragraphs in the Notice of Intent to Levy.

In regard to "The notice required under paragraph (1) shall include a brief statement which sets forth in simple and nontechnical terms -

The paragraph "A" in that subsection states "(A) the provisions of this title relating to levy and sale of property."

That content is contained with the Notice of Intent to Levy I have provided above.

116 posted on 03/15/2002 7:41:47 AM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: one2many

He has it saved in HTML for slapping on any thread like this

Whatever the source of the material I reply with, you have yet to address its content or show how it is wrong. The information provided does, however go a long way to rebutting the fanciful claims of the TP community. And certainly your commentary is no exception to that rule.

Actually I don't have everything saved in HTML for slapping on any thread like this, other than specific excerpts of Supreme Court cases that are answer to every thread I have seen posted on this subject.

I do however use a good search engine for the web that finds what is needed where hard information is called for, as opposed to mere personal opinions that folks like to spin as their fact.

As I have stated, I have a good html editor that allows me to format compose and incorporate anything I am able to locate on the web into these replies.

Stock answers, sometimes, because they reply to stock prosaic comments.

I assure you the editing, composition and opinions expessed are all mine, usually thrown together on the fly, as my frequent typo's and hurried sentence structure should be ample evidence of.

So come down off your high horse and engage in substance as regard the validity of the tax law, instead of merely sniping from the peanut gallery.

117 posted on 03/15/2002 7:54:56 AM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Middle Man

I just don't give the government anything it can use against me.

So what's required in a truthful return that can be used against you or any one for that matter? The tenor of your initial comment, was that one could not properly fill out a return without incriminating themselves. Or am I wrong in that?

Remember, if one does not fill out a return, that fact can be used in a criminal action against much more readily, than any question the 1040 asks.

118 posted on 03/15/2002 7:59:22 AM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Middle Man
"I have an acquaintance..."

Why is it always "I know a guy who knows a guy whose sister's, friend's, second cousin..."

How come nobody ever says "I did fill in the blank and the IRS ran screaming out of the house..."

Why? Because they don't have internet access in prison....

119 posted on 03/15/2002 8:01:07 AM PST by Mr. Quarterpanel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: one2many

OK geeze, so after some 100 posts you STILL won't put up paragraph (a). So I will do it for you.

Sorry, you have played your game since post 83. This is 110, you aren't too good at arithmetic either are you.

Your verbatim quotation of th e subsection(a) of statue 26 USC 6331, was already provided you by VRWC_minion at reply #86. If that is the what you were looking for, why did you not indicate your pleasure at having found what you wanted?

I note that you did not reply to VRWC_minion, so it was obviously not the answer you were looking for then or when you were inquiring of me.

You now quote verbatim the content of that statute subsection that VRWC_minion had provided previously, at Reply #86, to which you did not respond.

Your question to me was, to be precise, "Where is paragraph A of the notice of intent to levy?"

If you had what you actually wanted, and obviously you did from VRWC_minion previously and I suspect on your own, why didn't you post it instead of playing 20 questions? What a childish game you play.

You were not inquiring as to what was in the statutes governing the authority of the Secretary to Levy against property for non payment of taxes owed. Your inquiry was what was in the actual Notice not the subsection(a) of 26 USC 6331 you decided to throw out in the end.


That having been said lets take a closer look at what you finally posted and VRWC_minion had provided earlier which you chose to ignore to play silly games instead.

26 USC Section 6331(a). Levy and distraint

(a) Authority of Secretary

If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax. 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. If the Secretary makes a finding that the collection of such tax is in jeopardy, notice and demand for immediate payment of such tax may be made by the Secretary and, upon failure or refusal to pay such tax, collection thereof by levy shall be lawful without regard to the 10-day period provided in this section.

Why did you not highlite the first sentence which is applicable to all those required to file income taxes?

Instead I notice that you go to an instruction regarding a specific subgroup of persons who can come under section 6331 as well. Couldn't be because you are trying to mislead anyone could it. That is a very old tactic of the TP crowd, to exract isolated statement from a whole and claim there partial quote is the whole picture.

Sorry but you attempt at misdirection does not buy it here nor will it buy you any protection in a courtroom.

U S v. FISHER, 6 U.S. 358 (1805)

FindLaw: RODGERS v. U S, 185 U.S. 83 (1902)
"The primary rule of statutory construction is, of course, to give effect to the intention of the legislature."

Given that the income tax is totally within the Constitutional powers of Congress to levy as has been amply proven in prior section of this thread. Are trying to tell us now that Congress does not intend to tax your silly behind off, or that it does not intend to grant the authority necessary to enforce that tax upon you?

If that is what you believe, I have some ocean front property out in southwestern Colorado to sell yah.(at least it will be when global warming raises the sea level abit)

So to answer your question,

So how does fedgov levy the average citizen who doesn't fall into any of those groups upon whom SPECIFIC authorization to levy is authorized?

The average citizen falls under the FIRST sentence of 26 USC 6331. The second sentence you misdirect with is a special instruction regarding federal employees as a special case.

Now ask a hard one, after you learn abit about paragraph reading, composition and the rules of statutory constuction. And especially learn the grammar of properly posing a question so others know what you want.

120 posted on 03/15/2002 8:41:35 AM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Middle Man

The NRST won't do anything to shrink the cancerous growth of government.

The purpose of the NRST is to make taxes visible and assure that all citizens participate in the tax system letting people know what freebees for votes is really costing them.

You think no taxes on you will cause government to stop growing? You are forgetting that no taxes puts everyone on the gravy train, and the gov just cranks up the presses, or extracts the tax from business blaming it all on the boogyman "inflation". No brakes to the train buddy.

Walter Williams makes it very clear what is going on now, and you want to make it worse, or is it you want to be on that gravy train, arming the dragon.

Walter Williams, World Net Daily, 10-25-2000

According to the most recent U.S. Treasury Department figures, in 1997 the top 1 percent of income-earners (those with income of $250,000 and higher) paid 33 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 5 percent of income-earners ($108,000 and over) paid 52 percent, and the top 50 percent ($36,000 and over) paid 96 percent of income taxes. Guess what the bottom 50 percent of income earners paid?

If you're among those who pay little or no federal income taxes, what do you care about tax cuts? Moreover, if you think tax cuts pose a threat to government handout programs, you might be openly hostile and support Al Gore's silly "risky scheme" talk. So many Americans paying little or no federal taxes makes for a natural spending constituency. It's like me in the restaurant: What do I care about extravagance if you're footing the bill?

Guess what happens when you have representation without taxation that you are advocating.

70% of the voting public clamors for more from government looking for the top 40% of taxpayers to foot the bill.

The call for representation without taxation is the formula that got us where we are at today. The ability to hide or disguise taxation from the view of large sectors of the electorate allows the Congress to get away with the creation of the evergrowing monster that it fosters.

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-George Bernard Shaw

Liberty and freedom have a price, responsibility. If that price is avoided there are no brakes on the growth of government, the ultimate result is the end of freedom through creeping socialism.

How does one exercise "Eternal Vigilance" with horse blinders on.

People get the government they deserve, because we elect the scoundrels that buy our votes. Highest bidder wins.

Glood to know which camp you are in.

121 posted on 03/15/2002 8:59:41 AM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: one2many; Middle Man

"paragraph (a)", could he? (grin)

Your question was about Paragraph A in the Notice they send out,

Where is paragraph A of the notice of intent to levy?

Not subsection (a) of 26 USC 6331 of the IRC.

Now you are changing your inquiry, how droll. There is no "paragraph (a)" even in the statutes much less the Notice of Intent to Levy.

I suggest you do some remedial training in english grammer, and sentence construction. As well as a bit more attention to truth.

122 posted on 03/15/2002 9:06:01 AM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Middle Man

preparing dummy returns, seizing private property without due process and committing mail fraud with bootleg notices --

Preparing "dummy" return? Congressamandates the preparation of returns in providing documentation of the IRS's estimate of your income/tax owed as part of the administative procedure to assess a tax when no return is filed by a citizen.

seizing private property without due process?

What you may believe to be due process or not is not the controlling factor,

Refer, Subchapter D Part I. & Part II, there lay the rules for Due Process & Levy in regards to tax collection according to your favorite Congress, enacted under the authority of the Constitution for the United States of America, Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1 and Article I Section 8 Clause 18. And in accord with

295 U.S. 247 (1935)

United States Codes

So please provide us with some specific instances with real documentation.

That does not mean however that IRS agents do not screw up. They do and frequently, that is not however due to lack of due process under the tax law, or lack in the statutes defining such. In those instances of agent abuse there are procedures for redress, and civil suit that can be successful when the evidence actually supports the claims.

committing mail fraud with bootleg notices --

That's a real stretch when notices are standardised fill in the blank forms whose content is specified by law.

How about some specifics, as most complaints I have heard that had substance to them resulted in agents getting hit by the courts criminally where warranted, and civilly when supported by preponderence of the evidence.

Others that I have seen, more often than not, are pure sour grapes of someone who got tromped on because they refused to follow the due process laid out or the steps they should have take, and are clearly stated in all those notices.

You expect more than that maybe?

If you don't like the income/payroll tax system then you should be working through support of legislation to end it. Trying to ignore it or pretend the law is not valid is just another way to self destruction rather than doing anything constructive about it.

123 posted on 03/15/2002 10:24:45 AM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Quarterpanel; ancient_geezer; vrwc_minion
The federal government is corrupt. Millions of citizens send the bulk of their life's productivity to Washington every year out of fear and intimidation, although the courts will tell you that you have filed your return voluntarily, therefore they can use the information against you. That is not the mark of a free people.

The fact that Uncle Sam has the power to send innocent people to jail and label them "tax protestors" or "tax rebels" who don't "pay their fair share" does not change the fact that it is corrupt. You think a government that does that is okay; I don't. On this point we will never agree. There's really nothing more to debate.

124 posted on 03/15/2002 11:24:54 AM PST by Middle Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
Let's try to stay on point old man.

Now I will admit that I erred in asking you where is paragraph (a) In a notice of intent to levy.

I should have been asking you to explain where paragraph (a) is in the Form 8519, Notice of Levy

Now you know this but those unititated to the fraud may not....

Paragraph (a) is conveniently left out of the Notice of Levy because it ties the hands of the fraudmeisters.

Now if you would like to rebut that one simple point please do so by all means. I don't want to see any more of your cut and paste crap. Simply explain, from your point of view, why the fraudmeisters leave paragraph (a) out. (but put in paragraphs (b) and (c) of the IRS Code.

125 posted on 03/15/2002 11:57:01 AM PST by one2many
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: one2many

I should have been asking you to explain where paragraph (a) is in the Form 8519, Notice of Levy

You still don't get it do you. There is no "paragraph(a)" in a Notice, any notice. The paragraphs contained in notices are not indexed.

Now you suggest there should be something you refer to as a paragraph (a) in a Notice of Levy.

Now you know this but those unititated to the fraud may not....

You read minds now? I know I don't. And I do not have even the vaguest notion of what you are talking about.

because it ties the hands of the fraudmeisters.

Well point us to a sample of a taxpayers copy of a Notice of Levy form 8159, and lets look at it, and take the statues and see what is required by law to be on that form.

Tell me where a paragraph such as you believe to be missing from a "Notice of Levy" is specified in the statutes and what its content should be.

If it ain't there in the Notice there certainly is no way anyone comment on it. Especially not knowing what you are speaking about.

This is what I find on the internet in regards to the taxpayers copy of Notice of Levy for 8159. so far I have not located an example of a taxpayer copy of the Notice of Levy, form 8159.

http://www.michaelddaniels.com/liens_and_levies.htm

BANK LEVY

When issuing a bank levy, a FORM 668-A(C), NOTICE OF LEVY, is sent directly to the financial institution. A FORM 8519, TAXPAYER'S COPY OF NOTICE OF LEVY, is sent directly to the taxpayer. The financial institution is required to freeze any account related to the taxpayer named on the levy. Accounts will be frozen to levy monies up to the full amount stated on the notice. Any funds greater than the amount shown will be made available to the account holder. Institutions may take 24 hours for this process.

Any funds deposited by the account holder AFTER a Notice of Levy is issued are not subject to that notice. A subsequent Notice of Levy must be issued to freeze any subsequent deposits. The financial institution will hold the funds up to the full amount of the levy for 21 days before transmitting to the IRS. This 21day period allows taxpayers to contact us and negotiate alternative solutions to the outstanding balances.

Taxpayers whose offers are rejected and who made good faith revisions of their offers and resubmitted them within 30 days of the rejection would be eligible for a continuous period of relief from collection by levy.  see section on offer in compromise.

The form you are talking about is what is given you as a copy of the documentation served on a bank to freeze your accounts, after you have ignored the Notice of Intent, and a full Levy is imposed as in the above case on a bank account.

Now show us an example, and what the statutes sat must be present on the taxpayer's copy of such a notice.

126 posted on 03/15/2002 2:26:03 PM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Middle Man

The federal government is corrupt.

Yep, in many respects it is. It can only reflect the state of moral virtue of the people as a whole. The representatives that make the laws, come from the people and nowhere else.

Millions of citizens send the bulk of their life's productivity to Washington every year,

Somewhat overstated, but still too much in anycase.

out of fear and intimidation,

Mostly those who would rather evade the tax, and are afraid of being caught at it. Law does kind a work that way you know.

although the courts will tell you that you have filed your return voluntarily, therefore they can use the information against you.

Only if you are dumb enough to lie, or provide information that is indicative of a crime. Don't give them details of your crimes and you have no problem. The fifth amendment is there and allows you to challenge giving crime specific details about yourself. Amount of income simply doesn't fall in that catagory.

Of course if you have committed a crime and don't want to say "neighborhood drug dealer" as an occupation, you could always just not file the return, and hope they don't catch up with you otherwise.

Filing a truthful return, does not jeopardise anyone, you are allowed general descriptions of occupation, amount of income is in no way evidence of crime of itself.

The courts tell you, you may make a 5th challenge any question on the tax forms you can demonstrate in closed evidentiary hearing would lead to conviction of a crime.

That is not the mark of a free people.

You are not free to violate laws, any laws. I'll agree, the income tax is not a mark of a free people, it is a symptom of a corrupt and corruptable society however.

Change the law, violating it just points to loss of property and potentially liberty.

The fact that Uncle Sam has the power to send innocent people to jail and label them "tax protestors" or "tax rebels" who don't "pay their fair share" .

One who violates the laws enacted under the authority of the Constitution ain't innocent my freind.

does not change the fact that it is corrupt

Then change it, push for laws that encourage participation of all the electorate in keeping the lid on government execess.

You think a government that does that is okay; I don't.

I do? You have no idea what I think is ok. That is obvious from the tenor of your post. Your strawdogs do not fit the bill.

On this point we will never agree.

The only point I see is a strawdog argument that is meaningless to the real debate.

The real debate is what should be done to make things different, rather than mere bitches that you don't like paying taxes. No-one likes paying taxes. That does not make the law invalid or unconstitutional. It just means that to make a change will take more work and less sour grapes. The sour grapes, are wasted energy.

There's really nothing more to debate.

You have yet to debate anything, you have only complained, apparently expecting someone else to fix your red wagon for you. It don't work that way.

127 posted on 03/15/2002 3:18:19 PM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: one2many

Paragraph (a) is conveniently left out of the Notice of Levy because it ties the hands of the fraudmeisters.

Now if you would like to rebut that one simple point please do so by all means.

If you mean, "subsection(a)" of

26 USC Section 6331 Levy and distraint

(a) Authority of Secretary

If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax ... by levy upon all property and rights to property belonging to such person ..."

 

I don't want to see any more of your cut and paste crap.

Tough, I need the reference, and other's need it for understanding of the elements of this debate. What you want, simply doesn't count in this.

Simply explain, from your point of view, why the fraudmeisters leave paragraph (a) out. (but put in paragraphs (b) and (c) of the IRS Code.

Please quote the "paragraph(a)" you are talking about. I presume you are refering to the content of subsection(a) 26 USC Section 6331 Levy and distraint

Seeing as subsection(a) clearly specifies any person liable, that includes you if you have gross income in excess of the amount requiring the filing of a return.

That leads to a Notice of Intent to Levy on nonpayment of taxes owed, section 6331 in subsection(d) paragraph (4) states the information required by law:

26 USC Section 6331. Levy and distraint(d)(4) Information included with notice
The notice required under paragraph (1) shall include a brief statement which sets forth in simple and nontechnical terms -

(A) the provisions of this title relating to levy and sale of property,

(B) the procedures applicable to the levy and sale of property under this title,

(C) the administrative appeals available to the taxpayer with respect to such levy and sale and the procedures relating to such appeals,

(D) the alternatives available to taxpayers which could prevent levy on the property (including installment agreements under section 6159),

(E) the provisions of this title relating to redemption of property and release of liens on property, and

(F) the procedures applicable to the redemption of property and the release of a lien on property under this title.

Now what more is required that should be in a Notice of Levy? What is sent to you in the Notice of Intent to Levy pretty much specifies the whole gammut of what the Levy will be for, that you are suspected of being liable, and should take the recomended steps of due process open to you in subparagraphs (C) & (D) to resolve the raise.

Form 8519 is simply a taxpayers copy of what the send to a financial instution to freeze your assets as part of final Levy after you ignore the Notice of Intent to Levy and it still allows option of appeal and administrative compromise..

In short, if you ignore such notices, you simply set yourself up for default judgement against you same as would happen in a commercial distraint & levy process.

The differences are those laid out by Congress, the real culprit, where the statutes are drafted and enacted. That is where your recourse is when you disagree with law and there is not redress of the gripe to be found in Courts.

128 posted on 03/15/2002 3:49:56 PM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Have you ever posted anything that did not include an attack on the South. Whats up with this hateful obsession of yours?
129 posted on 03/15/2002 4:02:40 PM PST by BnBlFlag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BnBlFlag
On occasion. I've also been attacked on TWA posts.
130 posted on 03/15/2002 4:13:07 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: one2many

Now if you would like to rebut that one simple point please do so by all means.

On review of the statutes and the purpose of Notice of Levy, and In regard to Form 8519 the taxpayers copy of Notice of Levy.

In not properly responding to the prior Notices, a person is in default at the point of receiving the 8159.

At that stage it is no longer an issue as to whether or not you are required to pay the tax. At that point you are liable by consequence of not contesting under the due possess that was afforded you in prior notices. You have waived due possess procedures by not acting.

The only steps left is for you is "appeal" process or "offer in compromise". That's it.

The Subsection(a) of 26 USC 6331 "any person liable" is you by default. You didn't contest it when the opportunity was there for you to do so, only Subsections(b) & (c) apply (a) is no longer an issue, default settled any question that might otherwise have been raised.

That is the bottom line, as to why subsection(a) is not quoted in the taxpayer's copy of the Notice of Levey form 8519. Subsection(a) is for Notice of Intent to Levy. (b) & Apply to actual levy since person liable and amount has been determined.

131 posted on 03/15/2002 5:45:25 PM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: one2many
Addendum:

Just to let you know, your round of question conserning Notice of Intent to Levy & Notice of Intent. Has caused me to spend several hours in intense research on the subject.

You have just added one more refutation to failing arguments and why they don't work.

The bottom line answers and how I get to them goes into the database I have built over the last two years debating this junk with people just like you who figured they had the stumper question.

The TP legal rationalizations fall to pieces everytime, simply because Congress has had 140+ years to refine the Income Tax code to the state it is in.

If a rationale has been tried and even comes close to being an effective in letting a potential taxpayer of the hook, Congress modifies the statutes to remove any weakeness.

My purposes in all this are to find the real answers on how to end the Income/Payroll tax system in this nation. So far the legal wrangling method show's no promise, only an opportunity for the unwary to end up broke and/or provided an all expense paid fed holiday gratis the IRS & DOJ.

United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991)
Argued that there is no law imposing a tax on income, that "freeborn" state citizens are exempt from income tax, and that an individual is not a "person" under the tax code.

KANNE, Circuit Judge.

Read:

Patriot Beware!
by Thomas R. Eddlem

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1997/vo13no04/vo13no04_patriot.htm

If you really want to know where my head is at on the income tax law.

132 posted on 03/15/2002 6:09:18 PM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
The only steps left is for you is "appeal" process or "offer in compromise". That's it.

Also a bankruptcy filing.

133 posted on 03/16/2002 8:18:30 AM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
I wasn't aware you could remove a tax debt with a bankruptcy filing? I had the opposite impression from somewhere.

If you are certain of that, thanks for the input.

134 posted on 03/16/2002 8:31:03 AM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
Has caused me to spend several hours in intense research on the subject.

The first time I came across this TP'er stuff was on FR and it had to do with whether the tax was constitutional or not. As a CPA, I was interested because I am interested in how the legal concepts evovled and I also was attracted to the idea that on the off chance that it wasn't I wanted to see for myself.

In school we spend most of our time learning to apply the law not learning its history or rules of contruction etc. I must say that your knowledge base on the origins of the income tax far surpass CPA's and Attorneys.

But anyways the threads that were posted back then were posted by relatively newbies on both sides of the arguments. The TP'ers referred abstracts from several cases where the opinion of the judge seemed to be agreeing with the TP'ers. So I printed out the actual cases from my library and read them during some quiet time. What I found was the judges did actually make those quotes however they were repeating the argument being made by the TP'er. As you know it is quite common that the judge's opinion clearly states the contrary opinion before exlaining why it is wrong. What the TP'ers had done was to omit the parts where the judge, after stating the issue, tore the argument apart.

It was then that I learned that either the TP'ers don't have the reading comprehension skills to understand what they are reading or they are deliberating misleading. The ones with the books and tapes are deliberate but the ones like onetomany may just be an unwitting dupe.

135 posted on 03/16/2002 8:35:47 AM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion

It was then that I learned that either the TP'ers don't have the reading comprehension skills to understand what they are reading or they are deliberating misleading.

I suspect most of the folks we run into here on FR, are actually well intentioned but terribly misled. I know from direct personal experience of how one can fall into the TP way of thinking, and by into the arguments put out by the TP gurus.

One is easily led to accept what one is inclined to desire or believe. The stock in trade of every con artist out there is to convince a mark that he can actually have what he believes. Unfortunately, the statements of the gurus are taken a face value and not really checked out, folks are intimidated by the endless array of books in even the poorest equipped legal library, and finding specifics take a specialised knowledge that few ever have opportunity to aquire. As a consequenc a legal quotation is simply accepted without question, afterall it fits common sense, right. Self evident no need to check on things.

It is easier to believe all judges are crooks bought off by the IRS than to do the research to find a truth you really don't want to know. The TP guru is viewed almost as a saint, just trying to help out his fellow Americans. His message is just not credibly contested by anyone in the group, they all want to believe, and there is no counterview to be had. Government, the legal system, anyone associated with law is automatically dismissed and not a credible source, they are all in on the conspiracy to defraud you out of your property.

How did I get out? I have this nasty quirk in my character flaw that causes me to question anyone in the role of a teacher and to attempt to become as knowledgible as they in the material presented. I once tried to draft a researched memorandum of a position against the validity of the income taxe; learned how to do legal research and was spoiled from the day forward. I found out how flimsy the arguments were in reality, and the cites invariable were partial, out-of-context, and represented the reverse of the actual judgements of the court.

Needless to say I got out fast. Unfortunately too many friends didn't and many them have paid some rather severe consequences for their desire to believe and their rejection of anyone who could really help them.

136 posted on 03/16/2002 9:49:10 AM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: one2many
What a lady, she has all my respect. However I don't think she understands the herd mindset of the American public. If the zerbra next to you gets taken down it's none of your business keep grazing.

As long as the IRS keeps showing up with guns and leans to take out one tax payer at a time, ruin one family at a time, no one will object.

137 posted on 03/16/2002 10:02:45 AM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion

I must say that your knowledge base on the origins of the income tax far surpass CPA's and Attorneys.

It would probably do such folks some good to vigorously join the debate. I learned what I know from debating their arguments and answering them point by point out of research from material available here on the net.

I would guarantee those who approached the debate humbly, willing to do the objectiver research it takes, would come out with an education that they could never buy from a university.

Get enough of em educated & interested, we might even some some positive result in changing the laws.

138 posted on 03/16/2002 10:07:29 AM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
I wasn't aware you could remove a tax debt with a bankruptcy filing? I had the opposite impression from somewhere.

Its a bit tricky but its possible. Its one of the reasons the IRS is willing to even do an offer-in-compromise. For the tax debt to be dishargeable in bankruptcy the debt has to be assessed for at least three years. If the collection proceedings are tolled, like when an offer is made or by prior bankruptcy the the period the IRS has to collect is extended.

The assessment date is not exactly when the return is filed, its when the IRS gets around to recording it.

One of the problems with the TP'er route is that the three years never begins until they file. Anyone who owes and cannot pay is much better off filing as early as possible so that the statute of limitations starts running.

The other little known collection fact is the IRS can only chase you for ten years (unless they get a judgement) which they normally don't do. Again the ten years doesn't start until the tax is assessed.

139 posted on 03/16/2002 3:23:38 PM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion

Anyone who owes and cannot pay is much better off filing as early as possible so that the statute of limitations starts running.

Which is the most damning factor of any tax that requires the citizen to an affirmative act of reporting. It places every person in legal jeopardy, whether they truly owe a tax or not, or even when they legitimately are not required to file for gross income below the reporting threshold.

That alone is the prime legitimate reason to end the income tax. It indeed puts every person under an unneccesary scrutiny and potential abuse.

140 posted on 03/16/2002 6:14:11 PM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: all; MissAmericanPie
All:

I do not know who made the press release. I am posting this simply for the FYI of all reading the thread. In deference to the geezer and others I have removed the "pitch" info which appeared at the end of the press release. If anyone asks, I will post the "contact info" for those who would like more information on this matter. Thank you MissAmericanPie for telling it like it is! (Above)

"Fight the Balrog; free your kids"

___PRESS RELEASE___

Judge Refuses to Dismiss Tax Payer
Lawsuit Against Bank of America

Irwin Schiff who is regarded by many as being the Nation's leading authority on the income tax is suing the Bank of America for triple damages for turning over approximately $8,000 of his money to the IRS in response to a Notice a Levy. Third parties, such as banks and employers, that turn over bank accounts and wages to the IRS in response to IRS Notices of Levy are used to having suits brought against them for doing so summarily dismissed. That was not the case on November 13, 2001 in Clark County District Court, Las Vegas, Nevada. All:

I do not know who made the press release. I am posting simply for the FYI of all reading the thread. In deference to the geezer and others I have removed the "pitch" info which appeared at the end of the press release.

Judge Earl refused to grant the Bank of America's motion to dismiss this lawsuit. In his lawsuit, Schiff claimed that James Gritis the IRS agent who sent the Notice of Levy had no authority to do so. Schiff pointed out, to the surprise of the Court, that federal law does not give the IRS authority to seize property in payment of income taxes.

Holding up the Internal Revenue Code to the bench, Schiff said. "If you can show me in this Internal Revenue Code where it gives the IRS any authority to seize property, I'll withdraw my lawsuit." Judge Earl declined Schiff's offer. Schiff claimed that by turning over his money pursuant to a Notice of Levy - the Bank of America violated both federal and Nevada law.

The money at issue is based on traditional returns Schiff was coerced into filing during a 1990 probation hearing and has nothing to do with years in which he has filed his popular "zero" return - as explained in his latest book, The Federal Mafia: How the Government Illegally Imposes and Collect Income Taxes. The "zero" return allows taxpayers to file 1040's, reporting "zero" income (regardless of how much money they might have earned for that year) and even claim a refund of all the income taxes they might have paid in that year.

Schiff believes that by winning this lawsuit and collecting triple damages as a result of the Bank's negligence, he will put an end to the IRS' ability to extort billions from the American public with these fraudulent notices. "The only reason that the IRS has been able to get away with it, is because of the culpability of America's lawyers, who allow the IRS to do it." While Schiff is not a lawyer, he has over 500,000 books in circulation on the income tax and related subject.

Numerous students of Mr. Schiff filled the Courtroom, including some who came from out of State to witness the proceedings. Case No. A- 440323. Irwin Schiff v. Bank of America. Clark County District Court. Department 19. 200 South Third Street. Las Vegas, NV. 89101

"Americans are forcibly and illegally being kept from their God-given right to liberty; what are you doing to correct this situation? Oh I know, you don't have the time to get involved because you are working so hard to make enough money to support your family in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed, and you wouldn't do anything that might upset that lifestyle, right?!” -—Brent Johnson

141 posted on 03/17/2002 6:44:46 AM PST by one2many
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: one2many
Schiff pointed out, to the surprise of the Court, that federal law does not give the IRS authority to seize property in payment of income taxes.

I can only imagine the surprise of the court in its reaction.

Just because the judge is giving Mr. Schiff his day in court doesn't mean he has a case. The IRS and the bank is still required to follow certain procedures and MR. Schiff certainly has his rights under the law to contest this.

142 posted on 03/17/2002 10:48:02 AM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
Yeah, I agree; I didn't format the thing very well.
143 posted on 03/17/2002 12:17:03 PM PST by one2many
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion; one2many

Clark County District Court, Las Vegas, Nevada.

A suit against the Bank from the looks of it, probably for not exercising due investigation into the Schiff's claims as a fiduciary duty to the account holder.

The bank will contest, if it loses it may just quit and pay damages and not appeal as too costly to fight further.

It would be interesting to see a bank lose at County Court, and carry through to the Federal appellate level, arguing federal rulings such as:

295 U.S. 247 (1935)

regarding federal tax law which apply to the issue by the supremecy clause, not the local views of commercial distraint and levy procedures.

In anycase such is not a victory over the IRS, it is a question of a Bank's due diligence at the County Court's level.

This kind of case is one of Erwin Schiff's stock in trade. Unfortunately Doesn't do a thing to get anyone out of paying federal taxes, in fact may provide the fodder for federal willful failure to pay charges in Federal Courts.

144 posted on 03/17/2002 6:40:43 PM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
Opps!! cite did not register right on the FR server(bad hyperlink):

Here it is again: BULL v. UNITED STATES 295 U.S. 247 (1935)


145 posted on 03/17/2002 6:45:58 PM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
Opps!! cite did not register right on the FR server(bad hyperlink):

Here it is again: BULL v. UNITED STATES 295 U.S. 247 (1935)


146 posted on 03/17/2002 6:59:13 PM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-146 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson