[Middle Man]

I have no doubt there are people in the IRS who may actually believe they really are doing the American people a good deed and upholding the law. The last illusions I ever had about the IRS were exposed by the former IRS agents John Turner, Sherry Peel Jackson and Joe Banister.

Banister, in his speeches, tells how on his first day on the job as a Special Agent in the Criminal Investigation Division (CID), he had not been given any assignments yet and casually started reading through the IRS codebook. A supervisor spotted him and promptly came over and slammed the book shut on his desk, reprimanding him for bothering to look at the actual law.

The great service that Banister and others are doing is exposing the culture of lying and deception the IRS has been engaged in since its inception.

Next time you have a close encounter with an IRS agent, ask to see their pocket commission and see if the badge number is preceded by an "A" or an "E". If it's preceded by an "A", that means the person you're dealing with has NO enforcement authority -- either delegated or statutory -- to make you do anything with respect to income taxes.

John Turner and Sherry Jackson both testified that they never knew while they were in the service that their "non-enforcement" pocket commissions didn't give them any power to intimidate and threaten people into paying a tax those hapless victims didn't owe. The difference is, that they had enough integrity to stop abusing their authority once they discovered the hoax.

How many other IRS agents do you suppose are at this moment terrorizing Americans and destroying families, lives and businesses with powers they don't have?

[blackdog]

I have never been a victim of such tactics. My situations stemmed from employee relocations and catagorization of expense types. My company put me in a hotel for four months. That was almost all income according to the IRS. My company declined to consider my situation because the IRS always waits three to four years before denying a $20,000 expense creating $7,000 in taxes owed. As a result of waiting four years you now owe $14,000 in taxes including interest and penalty. In cases where the taxpayer was obviously not trying to evade taxes, but the disallowing of deductions based on reasonable acts in preparing your taxes should not include interest or penalty prior to the audit or review date.

They also seem to target those of us who cannot afford a good tax attorney and know we have just enough available equity to hit us up. Under ten grand and an attorney will cost just as much. Now the IRS knows that $50,000 knock-over's will meet with resistance and a good attorney.

Once an employer has three to four years pass, just try to get them to assist you? The IRS knows this too.

[ancient_geezer]

The difference is, that they had enough integrity to stop abusing their authority once they discovered the hoax.

Interesting then than folks like Bannister, who recommends William T. Conklin as an tax authority, are not above perpetrating their own sort of hoax on people encouraging them into the IRS meat grinder.

 

Found this at nettaxs.com, Under their FAQ page regarding Conklin

"William T. Conklin claims to be successful in fighting the IRS, and has described himself as a "known tax protester like Jesus Christ, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington." Conklin v. United States, KTC 1994-259, Case No. 89-N-1514 (D. Col. 1994). Unfortunately, his claims of success are contradicted by the public record, because he has lost every case on record. See, e.g., Conklin v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 41 (1988); Church of World Peace, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1992-318; Church of World Peace, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1994-87.

Cases claimed as wins by William T. Conklin:
Church of World Peace, Inc. v IRS, 715 F.2d 492
United States v. Church of World Peace, 775 F.2d 265
Conklin v. United States, 812 F.2d 1318
Conklin v. C.I.R., 897 F.2d 1032
Tavery v. United States, 897 F.2d 1027
Tavery v. United States, Civ. No. 87-Z-180, USDC Colorado "

I Recommend reading Otto Skinner's research into Bannister, and Conklin. Gives a good summary of the Conklin cases and he will even send you copies of the case filings and judgements for your own review for the cost of printing and mailing them to you.

http://ottoskinner.com/a-banister.html

"Now let's get back to Banister's book. On page 8, he states:

• In order to understand Conklin's victory, ...

Two paragraphs down, he states:

• Conklin's victories focused my attention on the fact that American taxpayers, without realizing it, apparently waive their 5th Amendment rights every time they submit information on their federal tax returns.

What victory? What victories? I believe that what should be apparent to any CID agent, is that the Fifth Amendment argument as an excuse for not filing tax returns has been failing individuals since long before 1980.

On page 11, Banister discusses another Conklin case (not one of the cases listed above) where Conklin had filed unsigned returns and was hit with a $500 penalty for filing a frivolous return. (Study 26 U.S.C. 6702 and you will understand the reason for the $500 penalty.) Banister states:

• Conklin even gave the Internal Revenue Service a power of attorney to sign the returns for him if they could do so without waiving his 5th Amendment rights.
  

This may sound impressive, but I do not believe any IRS person has the authority to sign a return that an individual submits; with or without a power of attorney. (In my opinion, to expect an IRS person to sign such a document is down right stupid.)

Banister goes on to say that Conklin sued in federal court, and that Judge Nottingham eventually ruled against him. This Conklin loss is apparently supposed to mean that Conklin proved his Fifth Amendment argument. Is the reader supposed to believe that a loss is a win? That a loss is a victory? I don't know about you, but I am sick and tired of double speak within the patriot community.

In his book, Banister refers to Bill Conklin's book, Why No One Is Required to File Tax Returns. At page 38 of this book, Conklin is discussing Tavery v. United States, 32 F.3d 1423 (10th Cir. 1994). Tavery (Conklin's spouse) was arguing that information on her tax return should not have been used in Conklin's contempt of court case regarding his eligibility for appointment of counsel. Both the district court and the appellate court ruled against her.

Still at page 38, Conklin states:

• It is clear in this particular situation that Ms. Tavery waived her Fifth Amendment protected rights when she filed the tax return and disclosed the information that the government allowed into evidence. Could the government have used Ms. Tavery's tax return information against her if she had been compelled to submit it? Of course not, if the Fifth Amendment means anything.

Good grief! What kind of sophistry is this? The Fifth Amendment states:

• No person shall be " compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,"

This means that no person can be required to provide evidence that would tend to incriminate him, and which could be used against him in a criminal case.

Hello. Anybody home? The information was used against Tavery in a civil case and not a criminal case. No information was being used against anyone in a criminal case. Certainly no information was being used against Tavery in any criminal case. And providing she had not supplied false information on her return, or supplied any self-incriminating evidence of some other kind of criminal act, she had not incriminated herself. Since she did not supply information that would tend to incriminate her (in other words, she did not provide information that might get her convicted for a crime), she did not waive her Fifth Amendment rights, contrary to what Conklin claims.

At page 31 of his book, Conklin states:

• I am a Communication Expert and have made an extensive study of the morpho-syntax of English. I have a Master's Degree from the University of Colorado in Communications and I have over fourteen years of experience teaching English and Communications at the elementary, junior-high, high school, and college levels.

Give me a break! Does Conklin not understand the difference between a civil case and a criminal case? Does he not understand the difference between incriminating evidence and information that is not incriminating? (Maybe I should be glad that I only have a Bachelor of Science degree and actually struggled with English, my one and only language.)

I know a lot of people have been led to believe in this Fifth Amendment argument. But these people do not bother to actually study the cases upon which the promoters supposedly rely. By simply believing what someone says a case says has landed a lot of people in jail. Most of these promoters are quite clever at leading people down a primrose path to legally invalid conclusions.

Who are some of the other people who have not only promoted the same kind of flawed information about the Fifth Amendment that Conklin has, but who are also promoting Joe Banister as if he is a wonderful addition to the freedom movement?"

There is alot more but I'm sure you will get the picture.

How many other IRS agents do you suppose are at this moment terrorizing Americans and destroying families, lives and businesses with powers they don't have?

Bannister's definitely one. Using Conklin's spielf to set up people for one big fall if they rely on his misleading and false claims.

Eicher v. United States, 774 F.2d 27 (1st Cir. 1985)
Argued that the Fifth Amendment allowed him to withhold all financial information from his income tax return.

It is well-settled that a taxpayer may not assert a blanket claim of Fifth Amendment privilege to avoid providing any financial information on an income tax return. Betz v. United States, 753 F.2d 834 (10th Cir.1985); Heitman v. United States, 753 F.2d 33 (6th Cir.1984); Brennan v. Commissioner, 752 F.2d 187 (6th Cir.1984); Martinez v. I.R.S., 744 F.2d 71 (10th Cir.1984); Baskin v. United States, 738 F.2d 975 (8th Cir.1984). While the privilege can be invoked in response to particular questions--in proper circumstances where the taxpayer can demonstrate a real danger of incrimination--it cannot be used, in effect, to excuse filing of a return.

United States v. Heise, 709 F.2d 449 (6th Cir. 1983)
Argued that his failure to file proper returns constituted a valid exercise of his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.

The gravamen of this appeal is Heise's argument that he is protected by the fifth amendment from disclosing the information requested and may not be subjected to prosecution for the exercise of that right. The Supreme Court has held that the fifth amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, if validly exercised, is a defense to a s 7203 prosecution. Garner v. United States, 424 U.S. 648, 662, 96 S.Ct. 1178, 1186, 47 L.Ed.2d 370 (1976).

The court also has held that the privilege does not justify an outright refusal to file an income tax return. United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 263, 47 S.Ct. 607, 71 L.Ed. 1037 (1927).

In the present case, Heise asserted the privilege in response to each specific question; however, he did so on such a wholesale basis as to deny the Internal Revenue Service any information with respect to his income for the years 1976 and 1977. This Circuit has held that a tax return which contains no information from which tax liability can be calculated does not constitute a tax return within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code. See [cites ommitted].

Other circuits also have held that the failure to provide any information in a tax return is tantamount to failure to file any return at all. See, [cites ommitted]. Therefore, Heise's failure to provide the proper financial data on his tax returns amounted to a total failure to file a return. This cannot be justified under the fifth amendment.

United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978 (8th Cir. 1983)
Argued that he was a "nontaxpayer" because he did not enter a contract for government services, that the district court had no jurisdiction, and that the tax code violated his Fifth and Thirteenth Amendment rights.

Drefke argues that 26 U.S.C. ss 7203 and 7205 giving rise to his conviction constitute punishment for failure to give self-incriminating information. Both the Supreme Court and the Eighth Circuit have held that the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination does not authorize individuals to refuse to disclose information concerning their income. United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 47 S.Ct. 607, 71 L.Ed. 1037 (1927); United States v. Russell, 585 F.2d 368 (8th Cir.1978).

---

 

GARNER v. UNITED STATES, 424 U.S. 648 (1976)

"In United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259 (1927), the Court held that the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination is not a defense to prosecution for failing to file a return at all. But the Court indicated that the privilege could be claimed against specific disclosures sought on a return, saying:

• "If the form of return provided called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making he could have raised the objection in the return, but could not on that account refuse to make any return at all."

"In summary, we conclude that since Garner made disclosures instead of claiming the privilege on his tax returns, his disclosures were not compelled incriminations. 21 He therefore was foreclosed from invoking the privilege when such information was later introduced as evidence against him in a criminal prosecution.

The judgment is

• Affirmed."

UNITED STATES v. SULLIVAN, 274 U.S. 259 (1927)

"As the defendant's income was taxed, the statute of course required a return. See United States v. Sischo, 262 U.S. 165 , 43 S. Ct. 511. In the decision that this was contrary to the Constitution we are of opinion that the protection of the Fifth Amendment was pressed too far. If the form of return provided called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making he could have raised the objection in the return, but could not on that account refuse to make any return at all. We are not called on to decide what, if anything, he might have withheld. Most of the items warranted no compaint. It would be an extreme if not an extravagant application [274 U.S. 259, 264]   of the Fifth Amendment to say that it authorized a man to refuse to state the amount of his income because it had been made in crime. But if the defendant desired to test that or any other point he should have tested it in the return so that it could be passed upon. He could not draw a conjurer's circle around the whole matter by his own declaration that to write any word upon the government blank would bring him into danger of the law. Mason v. United States, 244 U.S. 362 , 37 S. Ct. 621; United States ex rel. Vajtauer v. Commissioner of Immigration ( January 3, 1927) , 47 S. Ct. 302. In this case the defendant did not even make a declaration, he simply abstained from making a return. See further the decision of the Privy Council, Minister of Finance v. Smith (1927) A. C. 193.