Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

18655Re: [tips_and_tricks] Past IRS Taxes Penalties/Fees

Expand Messages
  • Jake
    Aug 14, 2011
           > Exactly.  Congressional mandate is established.   Doesn't matter how many times something appears in a law.  ONce will do it.  PLease explain how a treasury order destroys public law?  

      What are you talking about?  I didn't say anything about a T.O. 

           > District director is also required by hundreds of CFR regulations.  

      No regulation can create an office which a statute eliminated.  100's of Regs. still refer to "district director" because they haven't been changed yet, but many have been, removing the term.  In addition, RRA's alteration to § 6334 was made before the implementation of RRA 98 & before the office of district director was eliminated (revenue districts too).  The fact that CONgress hasn't changed § 6334 since the implementation is their fault - however, look @  § 6334 (e)(2) & notice the word "or":

      (e) Levy allowed on principal residences and certain business assets in certain circumstances

           (2) Certain business assets
           Property (other than a principal residence) described in subsection (a)(13)(B) shall not be exempt from levy if— 
              (A) a district director or assistant district director of the Internal Revenue Service personally approves (in writing) the levy of such property;
              (B) the Secretary finds that the collection of tax is in jeopardy.

      Consequently, a levy on "certain business assets" is NOT limited to the approval of a (non-existent) district director & all the IRS would have to do is say is they have to levy because collection is in "jeopardy", using B instead of A. 

      Regarding the fact that there are no district directors anymore, I'll do a "copy & paste" from one of the cases I'm working on:

      RRA 98, section 1001, provides in part that:

         The Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall develop and implement a plan to reorganize the Internal Revenue Service. The plan shall —
           (1) supersede any organization or reorganization of the Internal Revenue Service based on any statute or reorganization plan applicable on the effective date of this section;
      eliminate or substantially modify the existing organization of the Internal Revenue Service which is based on a national, regional, and district structure; (Emphasis added).

              a. The United States Department of Justice stated on 29 May 2009 that, “The IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 abolished internal revenue districts as of October 1, 2000 . . ."  See Testimony of David C. Williams, Inspector General, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, dated May 8, 2001, Implementation of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Joint Hearing Before Committees of the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives.” (Emphasis added). The Testimony mentioned contains the following statement:

              "As stated previously, on October 1, 2000, the IRS achieved a significant milestone toward modernization by putting into effect (or standing up) a new organizational structure. The four major components of the new IRS are the Wage and Investment (W&I) Division, the Small Business/Self-Employed (SB/SE) Division, the Large and Mid-Size Business (LMSB) Division and the Tax Exempt and Government Entities (TE/GE) Division."  (Emphasis added).

      The organization of the IRS which was "based on a national, regional, and district structure" DOES NOT EXIST anymore & it hasn't for over 10 years.  And just because the secretary of the treasury is "slower than a 7-year itch" updating regulations does NOT mean that the old nat'l. / regional / district structure still exists.  If you want to believe it does that's your prerogative, but you're 10 years behind the MAJOR structural change to 4 divisions which which are not geographical: [1] Wage and Investment, [2] Small Business/Self-Employed, [3] Large and Mid-Size Business, [4] Tax Exempt and Government Entities.

      Also, the government's contention that the IRS could continue with "business as usual" during the reorganization process by re-delegating functions which were performed by offices that don't exist anymore is just now getting to the court of appeals level.  Of course, it's incumbent on the courts to not disrupt the IRS' ability to collect, no matter how they have to "weasel word" their decisions, but from a technical legal standpoint, there are some serious problems, e.g., 26 CFR § 301.6203-1 requires that an assessment certificate be signed by the "assessment officer", which was chosen by the district director, but neither of those offices exist anymore, so the IRS can't produce a valid assessment certificate.  I've never seen one which met the requirements of the regulation to begin with, but now the person who is to sign it doesn't exist & neither does the person who would assign that job.

      However, I don't like to waste my time with arguments over legal theory - all I care about is what works, what doesn't & why.

      ~ ~ ~
    • Show all 20 messages in this topic