18658Re: [tips_and_tricks] Past IRS Taxes Penalties/Fees
- Aug 14, 2011Hey, Bob C.,
Wrong! Wrong! Section 3445 relates to IRS procedures for seizure of residences and businesses. There is one mention in Section 3445 of district directors. This is it:
(2) CERTAIN BUSINESS ASSETS.—Property (other than aOn the other hand, Section 1001 of the Act says this:
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; or
‘‘(B) the Secretary finds that the collection of tax is
SEC. 1001. REORGANIZATION OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—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 reorganiza-
tion plan applicable on the effective date of this section;
(2) eliminate or substantially modify the existing organiza-
tion of the Internal Revenue Service which is based on a
national, regional, and district structure;
(3) establish organizational units serving particular groups
of taxpayers with similar needs; and
(4) ensure an independent appeals function within the
Internal Revenue Service, including the prohibition in the plan
of ex parte communications between appeals officers and other
Internal Revenue Service employees to the extent that such
communications appear to compromise the independence of the
appeals officers.So, the law tells the IRS to do away with the district/region type of organization and go to a system with units serving certain categories of "taxpayers." Then, later in the act, it says that only district directors and assistant district directors (or the Secretary in certain jeaopard cases) may approve certain types of levies.
In any case, the RRA98 law tells the IRS to do away with districts and, by implication, district directors. So Jake is correct.
Anyone who wishes to read the RRA98 law may download a .pdf cop[y here: PDF (792 KB)
========================================================On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 5:26 AM, Bob Conlon <bobc3591@...> wrote:Wrong!RRA98 at section 3445 established the fact that congress mandated that the position of district director be maintained!This is the whole point! The IRS (read, sec of treas) screwed up. The complete opposite is true!The district director position must exist by law and the IRS eliminated it. The IRS has a big problem on its hands!This cannot stand. Sooner or later this will hit the courts.
--- On Sat, 8/13/11, Jake <jake_28079@...> wrote:
From: Jake <jake_28079@...>
Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Past IRS Taxes Penalties/Fees
To: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Saturday, August 13, 2011, 3:54 PM> I would demand to know who the district director is . . .Due to implementation of the IRS Restructuring & Reform Act, the office of district director was eliminated. As of October 2001, there are no more district directors.
~ ~ ~
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>