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

IRS audit

Expand Messages
  • choicepoint111
    I am unable to produce necessary records which date back to 1999.I face big liability according to accountant. Any advice???
    Message 1 of 21 , Feb 3, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      I am unable to produce necessary records which date back to 1999.I
      face big liability according to accountant. Any advice???
    • Annie Zachery
      I do many filings for back years and can usually prevail where accountants will not do the work. If you would like help, please contact me. I know a few
      Message 2 of 21 , Feb 3, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        I do many filings for back years and can usually prevail where accountants will not do the work.
        If you would like help, please contact me.  I know a few things that they won't tell you.
         
        Annie Zachery
        270 259-8766
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: 02/03/2007 10:42 AM
        Subject: [tips_and_tricks] IRS audit

        I am unable to produce necessary records which date back to 1999.I
        face big liability according to accountant. Any advice???


        No virus found in this incoming message.
        Checked by AVG Free Edition.
        Version: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.21/665 - Release Date: 2/2/2007
      • Sanjay Srikonda
        Hi, everybody, Does anyone know where I should look for the jurisdiction of matters to which the Small Claims Court in NYC cannot adjudicate? I ve looked in
        Message 3 of 21 , Feb 3, 2007
        • 0 Attachment

          Hi, everybody,

           

          Does anyone know where I should look for the jurisdiction of matters to which the Small Claims Court in NYC cannot adjudicate?  I’ve looked in the NY State Consolidated Laws and haven’t found what is the jurisdiction of the small claims court.

           

          This is money she claims I was meant to pay for “goods and services” for medical bills, I never agreed to pay.  I didn’t even KNOW the goods and services were rendered until I got a bill almost a year later FROM her that said “5th Notice” and claimed that she had the right to get this money out of me.

           

          I plan on doing this pro se, but I need where to look in the Small Claims court rules that says pendent issues arising from a divorce action and agreed as forgiven in the final Divorce paperwork cannot then be re-sued in Small Claims court.

           

          Goods and services to me means that she provided the services or the goods and I defaulted on paying her for those goods and services, where, in fact, this is medical stuff she went to.

           

          I have found the following so far:

           

          “S 1810. Limitation on right to resort to small claims procedures. If the clerk shall find that the procedures of the small claims part are sought to be utilized by a claimant for purposes of oppression or harassment, as where a claimant has previously resorted to such procedures on the same claim and has been unsuccessful after the hearing thereon, the clerk may in his discretion compel the claimant to make application to the court for leave to prosecute the claim in the small claims part. The court upon such application may inquire into the circumstances and, if it shall find that the claim has already been adjudicated, or that the claim is sought to be brought on solely for purposes of oppression or harassment and not under color of right, it may make an order denying the claimant the use of the small claims part to prosecute the claim.”

           

          She is doing this to basically harass me for monies she agreed were no longer at issue. However, I need some caselaw or something that says she hasn’t got a leg to stand on.

           

          Any help would be gratefully appreciated.

        • Don Schwarz
          Under the FIFTH amendment, you don t have to give any testimony against yourself. Why would you want to produce this evidence to be used only against you, not
          Message 4 of 21 , Feb 4, 2007
          • 0 Attachment


            Under the FIFTH amendment, you don't have
            to give any testimony against yourself.

            Why would you want to produce this evidence to
            be used only against you, not for you?

            Just show up. If you have intentionally committed
            a crime, they IRS has to prove this beyond
            reasonable doubt in a court of law where the jurors
            determine the law as well as the facts.



            At 04:42 PM 2/3/07 +0000, you wrote:

            I am unable to produce necessary records which date back to 1999.I
            face big liability according to accountant. Any advice???
          • Jim
            The law can not demand the impossible. If you can not produce the records, then how can a demand to do so make them appear? On the other hand, were you ever
            Message 5 of 21 , Feb 4, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              The law can not demand the impossible. If you can not produce the
              records, then how can a demand to do so make them appear? On the other
              hand, were you ever ordered to keep books and records? Probably not.
              Also keep in mind that a tax liability is only incurred when there is
              an assessment according to the code, which most likely does not exist
              in your case. I know of no statute that allows for a self-assessment.
              Whatever the audit results in, make sure you've got the standard of an
              assessment according to the code and hold the IRS to it. Without it,
              there is no tax, no tax liability, and no taxpayer.

              --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "choicepoint111"
              <choicepoint111@...> wrote:
              >
              > I am unable to produce necessary records which date back to 1999.I
              > face big liability according to accountant. Any advice???
              >
            • ScrewieLo@AOL.com
              NOTICE THEM BY REGISTEDED MAIL THAT YOU WILL BE COMING IN WITH A COURT RECORDER AND A TAPE RECORDER. IF YOU HAVE TO GO IN PER ANY SUMMONS BRING YOUR PRIVATE
              Message 6 of 21 , Feb 4, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                NOTICE THEM BY REGISTEDED MAIL THAT YOU WILL BE COMING IN WITH A COURT RECORDER AND A TAPE  RECORDER. IF YOU HAVE TO GO IN PER ANY SUMMONS BRING YOUR PRIVATE  BOOKS AND RECORDERS IN A LOCKED BOX. MARK THEM PRIVATE AND PUT A PRICE ON IT ($1,500 OR $ 10,000 WHAT EVER) .
                 
                 ASK THEM QUESTIONS :  LIKE DID THE Secretary of Treasury, Delegate them?  
                                                          can you see the delegation signed by the  Secretary of Treasury?
                 
                   do a AFFIDAVIT OF ERROR  hold them to it to rebutt it. here is an example  of which I did in my case.    
                                                         
              • Michael Noonan
                It has been a while since I have done IRS matter, so I do not have the cite handy. You are required to produce records, BUT you are NOT required to SHOW THEM!
                Message 7 of 21 , Feb 7, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  It has been a while since I have done IRS matter, so
                  I do not have the cite handy.

                  You are required to produce records, BUT you are NOT
                  required to SHOW THEM!

                  If I can find that info, I will, but my material is
                  in storage.

                  mn

                  Moderator/Bear: My understanding was that to "produce" had a legal meaning of "prepare for inspection." Rick Schramm tells about wrapping up a box and putting a skull and crossbones on the outside along with the words "open at your own risk." They set the box on the table and told the IRS agents, "Here are my records." The IRS agents refused to open the box! :-) I heard another story about someone that took actual phonograph records.
                • susanne waid
                  Regarding producing records: A friend was summoned to IRS court to produce records. The friend told the judge that he had no books, papers & records
                  Message 8 of 21 , Feb 7, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment

                    Regarding producing records:  A friend was summoned to IRS court to produce records.  The friend told the judge that he had no books, papers & records regarding the IRS. He was instructed by the judge to “invent” them.  At the subsequent hearing, the friend produced phonograph records, text books form the University of Wyoming & notes that he took while in class at U of WY.  The case was dismissed!!  Susanne Waid


                    You are required to produce records, BUT you are NOT
                    required to SHOW THEM!


                    Moderator/Bear: My understanding was that to "produce" had a legal meaning of "prepare for inspection." Rick Schramm tells about wrapping up a box and putting a skull and crossbones on the outside along with the words "open at your own risk." They set the box on the table and told the IRS agents, "Here are my records." The IRS agents refused to open the box! :-) I heard another story about someone that took actual phonograph records.

                  • one
                    If you mean by show , you mean prove by your testimony. You are not required to testify or produce testimonial evidence. You are just required to attend the
                    Message 9 of 21 , Feb 7, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      If you mean by "show", you mean prove by your testimony. You are not
                      required to testify or produce testimonial evidence.

                      You are just required to attend the session of court.

                      O
                      n Wed, 2007-02-07 at 10:27 -0800, Michael Noonan wrote:
                      > It has been a while since I have done IRS matter, so
                      > I do not have the cite handy.
                      >
                      > You are required to produce records, BUT you are NOT
                      > required to SHOW THEM!
                    • Frog Farmer
                      ... Is one whom the Secretary declined to give the statutory notice that he was required to keep books and records nonetheless required to keep them? What
                      Message 10 of 21 , Feb 7, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        susanne waid [mailto:susannew@...] wrote:

                        > You are required to produce records, BUT you are NOT
                        > required to SHOW THEM!

                        Is one whom the Secretary declined to give the statutory notice that he
                        was required to keep books and records nonetheless required to keep
                        them? What kind of records, assuming that one is not "in business
                        effectively connected"? Of course I have many books and records, but I
                        doubt they'd be interested in Moby Dick or Electric Ladyland. I don't
                        want to assume anything against my best interests.

                        > Moderator/Bear: My understanding was that to "produce" had a legal
                        > meaning of "prepare for inspection." Rick Schramm tells about wrapping
                        > up a box and putting a skull and crossbones on the outside along with
                        > the words "open at your own risk." They set the box on the table and
                        > told the IRS agents, "Here are my records." The IRS agents refused to
                        > open the box! :-)

                        I've actually seen a similar situation, without the warning and
                        invitation to assume risk. The version I witnessed was the guy had a
                        box with whatever he imagined books and records meant. When they
                        extended their hands to get them, he said, "you said to bring them with
                        me. I did. Nothing says I have to turn them over to you absent a court
                        order." They terminated that hearing on another point entirely, that he
                        had three witnesses and they only wanted to admit two. Three are needed
                        to be witnesses at the common law. Nothing ever came of it ever again.

                        > I heard another story about someone that took actual
                        > phonograph records.

                        Actual phonograph records are too valuable to risk to those types
                        anymore. How about taking a few data CDs encrypted with PGP?? ;-)

                        Charge a fee for decoding, or swap for a complete decoding of your IMF!

                        Regards,

                        FF
                      • Ed Siceloff
                        One could always bring one s personal copy of Merrill Jenkins book Everything I Have is TheIrs. I think that particular title would tell them what they want
                        Message 11 of 21 , Feb 7, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          One could always bring one's personal copy of Merrill Jenkins' book Everything I Have is TheIrs.  I think that particular title would tell them what they want to know. 
                           
                          Ed 
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 5:55 PM
                          Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] IRS audit

                          susanne waid [mailto:susannew@vcn. com] wrote:

                          > You are required to produce records, BUT you are NOT
                          > required to SHOW THEM!

                          Is one whom the Secretary declined to give the statutory notice that he
                          was required to keep books and records nonetheless required to keep
                          them? What kind of records, assuming that one is not "in business
                          effectively connected"? Of course I have many books and records, but I
                          doubt they'd be interested in Moby Dick or Electric Ladyland. I don't
                          want to assume anything against my best interests.

                          .

                        • John F. Worrell
                          yes I Lemar Hardin came up with that one and it works due to the ambiguousness of the tax code! code defined as deceit!! Blacks! ... From: susanne waid To:
                          Message 12 of 21 , Feb 7, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            yes I Lemar Hardin came up with that one and it works due to the ambiguousness of the tax code! code defined as deceit!! Blacks!
                             
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 2:29 PM
                            Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] IRS audit

                            Regarding producing records:  A friend was summoned to IRS court to produce records.  The friend told the judge that he had no books, papers & records regarding the IRS. He was instructed by the judge to “invent” them.  At the subsequent hearing, the friend produced phonograph records, text books form the University of Wyoming & notes that he took while in class at U of WY.  The case was dismissed!!  Susanne Waid


                            You are required to produce records, BUT you are NOT
                            required to SHOW THEM!


                            Moderator/Bear: My understanding was that to "produce" had a legal meaning of "prepare for inspection." Rick Schramm tells about wrapping up a box and putting a skull and crossbones on the outside along with the words "open at your own risk." They set the box on the table and told the IRS agents, "Here are my records." The IRS agents refused to open the box! :-) I heard another story about someone that took actual phonograph records.


                            No virus found in this incoming message.
                            Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                            Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.29/673 - Release Date: 2/6/2007 5:52 PM
                          • mobinem@aol.com
                            Did you mean Royal LaMarr Hardy. You should tell the rest of the story. He is in prison. Please don t push something that will get others in trouble. John C.,
                            Message 13 of 21 , Feb 7, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Did you mean Royal LaMarr Hardy. You should tell the rest of the story. He is in prison. Please don't push something that will get others in trouble.
                               


                              John C., of the family Stuart
                              623-206-4339
                              mobinem@...
                              c/o postal service location
                              21001 N. Tatum Blvd. Suite 1630472
                              Phoenix, Arizona republic cf 85050 cf

                              John C.: Stuart is a Sovereign natural flesh and blood man.
                              All rights reserved
                              Without Prejudice
                              Sovereign's confidentiality notice; This private email
                              message, including any attachment(s)is for the sole use
                              of the intended recipient and may contain privileged
                              and confidential information. Any/all political, private
                              or public entities, International, Federal, State, or
                              Local corporate government(s), private International
                              Organization(s) Municipality(ies), Corporate agent(s),
                              informant(s), investigator(s) et. al., and/or third party
                              (ies) working in collusion by monitoring my email(s), and
                              any other means of communication without my permission
                              are barred from any unauthorized review, use,
                              disclosure, or distribution. With explicit reservation of
                              all my rights, without prejudice and without recourse to
                              any of my rights. Any omission does not constitute a
                              waiver of any and/or all intellectual property rights or
                              reserved rights. Notice to Principal is notice to Agent,
                              Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal.

                              This message (including any attachments) contains confidential
                              and/or proprietary information intended only for the addressee. 
                              Any unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or reliance on
                              the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may
                              constitute a violation of law.  If you are not the intended
                              recipient, please notify the sender immediately by responding to
                              this e-mail, and delete the message from your system.  If you
                              have any questions about this e-mail please notify the sender
                              immediately.
                            • Ed Siceloff
                              LaMarr went to prison for other reasons, which were not valid. He had won several cases based on his reliance defense. Taught many others to do the same.
                              Message 14 of 21 , Feb 8, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                LaMarr went to prison for other reasons, which were not valid.  He had won several cases based on his "reliance" defense.  Taught many others to do the same.  These people prosecuting him finally got him by not accepting any of his "evidence" as evidence--they railroaded him, after he and his organization taught many people to do the same, actually staying out of trouble. 
                                  That would be adding some other facts to the story.  Upon my memory, he had been out and under an order to not teach the things that he was teaching.  They put him in prison because they construed something he had done as to be violating the conditions of his being "out." 
                                 
                                Ed
                                ----- Original Message -----
                                Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 10:47 PM
                                Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] IRS audit

                                Did you mean Royal LaMarr Hardy. You should tell the rest of the story. He is in prison. Please don't push something that will get others in trouble.
                                 

                                 
                                .

                              • John Marmora
                                I have a friend that was ordered to bring his records to tax court. He put magazines he collected into a paper bag, taped it shut and when the judge told him
                                Message 15 of 21 , Feb 8, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  I have a friend that was ordered to bring his records to tax court.
                                  He put magazines he collected into a paper bag, taped it shut and when the judge told him to bring it forward to him, my friend dropped the package on the floor, put his foot on it and said "no, you come and take it". The judge said very sternly "I said bring it here". My friend repeated himself. The judge told him to get out of his coutrt. My friend was never called back.

                                  John
                                • Frog Farmer
                                  ... This is one reason I don t like Name Brand Law - people might think that just because you go to prison, you are incorrect on any legal theories you might
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Feb 8, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    mobinem@... [mailto:mobinem@...] wrote:

                                    > Did you mean Royal LaMarr Hardy. You should tell the rest of the
                                    > story. He is in prison. Please don't push something that will get
                                    > others in trouble.

                                    This is one reason I don't like "Name Brand" Law - people might think
                                    that just because you go to prison, you are incorrect on any legal
                                    theories you might propound. The law was the law before Hardy or Schiff
                                    or Elvick or Gordon or I came along. For some reason, every time
                                    somebody new cracks a book and discovers the old obvious that's been
                                    there forever, somebody else notices it and wants a seminar and a
                                    package to implement. And so what that one researcher paid more
                                    attention to gets the most attention, and the stuff he forgot to mention
                                    goes unmentioned because the package buyers don't go far beyond the
                                    boundaries of the package.

                                    Then, after the packages have been sold, and the IRS or whomever is at
                                    issue takes on a hard line in order to quell dissent and make a few
                                    examples to cow the herd, the guy who was trying to help out by sharing
                                    what he found gets labeled a loser and now his ideas are worth squat (to
                                    those needing a leader).

                                    I really don't think this country will be saved by a few trying to help
                                    those who cannot be helped. I think everyone will have to defend
                                    themselves, and the sooner a larger number become willing to do it, the
                                    better for all. The Machine is already in a bad state and is choking.
                                    I'm optimistic for the future because the series of events that I
                                    thought would have to take decades is happening extremely quickly. But
                                    no majority will ever notice it in my lifetime.

                                    I've been thinking of producing a series of DVDs showing what I think
                                    should be obvious to anyone, but for which people have been asking me
                                    for years, "how do you do THAT?" I'd have to charge a lot for them of
                                    course, and suffer being called a Paytriot For Profit, in the course of
                                    trying to get the information to those who could really use it. I'd
                                    expect lots of dissatisfaction too, to which I'd have to say, "so sorry!
                                    - no refunds and no continuing support". Think I should move ahead with
                                    it?


                                    Regards,

                                    FF
                                  • gilbert london
                                    I am retaining a former IRS agent to represent me at the audit. Good idea??? Messages in this topic (9)
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Feb 8, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I am retaining a former IRS agent to represent me at the audit. Good idea???



                                      Any questions? Get answers on any topic at Yahoo! Answers. Try it now.

                                    • mobinem@aol.com
                                      I never said LeMarr was wrong in concept or intent. That whole record story is what I was trying to set the record straight on. John C., of the family Stuart
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Feb 8, 2007
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        I never said LeMarr was wrong in concept or intent. That whole record story is what I was trying to set the record straight on.
                                         


                                        John C., of the family Stuart
                                        623-206-4339
                                        mobinem@...
                                        c/o postal service location
                                        21001 N. Tatum Blvd. Suite 1630472
                                        Phoenix, Arizona republic cf 85050 cf

                                        John C.: Stuart is a Sovereign natural flesh and blood man.
                                        All rights reserved
                                        Without Prejudice
                                        Sovereign's confidentiality notice; This private email
                                        message, including any attachment(s)is for the sole use
                                        of the intended recipient and may contain privileged
                                        and confidential information. Any/all political, private
                                        or public entities, International, Federal, State, or
                                        Local corporate government(s), private International
                                        Organization(s) Municipality(ies), Corporate agent(s),
                                        informant(s), investigator(s) et. al., and/or third party
                                        (ies) working in collusion by monitoring my email(s), and
                                        any other means of communication without my permission
                                        are barred from any unauthorized review, use,
                                        disclosure, or distribution. With explicit reservation of
                                        all my rights, without prejudice and without recourse to
                                        any of my rights. Any omission does not constitute a
                                        waiver of any and/or all intellectual property rights or
                                        reserved rights. Notice to Principal is notice to Agent,
                                        Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal.

                                        This message (including any attachments) contains confidential
                                        and/or proprietary information intended only for the addressee. 
                                        Any unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or reliance on
                                        the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may
                                        constitute a violation of law.  If you are not the intended
                                        recipient, please notify the sender immediately by responding to
                                        this e-mail, and delete the message from your system.  If you
                                        have any questions about this e-mail please notify the sender
                                        immediately.
                                      • Ed Siceloff
                                        Just so nothing here is violated I will address merely making money from the publication of concepts. I reckon that there wouldn t be any Paytriots for Profit
                                        Message 19 of 21 , Feb 8, 2007
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Just so nothing here is violated I will address merely making money from the publication of concepts.  I reckon that there wouldn't be any Paytriots for Profit if everyone, or a majority of people at any rate, were not products of school systems designed to make them slaves and idiots, or just loyal wage earners content to consume the bounties that our Creator have put into the earth, and consume them in as vast of quantities as possible.  Freedom has become limited to consumer choice. 
                                            Absolutely anybody who has any concept in terms of our "real" freedom, and responsibilities, that are parts of our office as sort of regents of our King, the Creator, and how to live in various societies that are on earth today, as his regent, or steward, has my applause, if not my money.  I buy courses, seminars, etc.  Part of my extra-curricular education.  Then choose what I will use. 
                                            But, I also gravitate between two extremes on the scale of sharing with the world.  If what you have helps your fellow man in health, or freedom from slavery, it probably shouldn't be sold to him.  Grace is given, not freely, but rather by choice of the Creator Who is no respecter of person.  But, with that said, one also has to understand that the ox shouldn't be muzzled either, and is worth his grain.  The act of devoting one's time to learning certain concepts is the choice of devotion of a limited resource (time) and is a subject of economy (assignment of priority within scarcity).  There is no criticism from this quarter on selling courses most of the time.  If one has the ability, go for it. 
                                          ----- Original Message -----
                                          Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:23 AM
                                          Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] IRS audit



                                          I've been thinking of producing a series of DVDs showing what I think
                                          should be obvious to anyone, but for which people have been asking me
                                          for years, "how do you do THAT?" I'd have to charge a lot for them of
                                          course, and suffer being called a Paytriot For Profit, in the course of
                                          trying to get the information to those who could really use it. I'd
                                          expect lots of dissatisfaction too, to which I'd have to say, "so sorry!
                                          - no refunds and no continuing support". Think I should move ahead with
                                          it?

                                          Regards,

                                          FF

                                          .

                                        • Michael Noonan
                                          Fourth Amendment: The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
                                          Message 20 of 21 , Feb 9, 2007
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Fourth Amendment: The right of people to be secure in
                                            their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
                                            unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
                                            violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon
                                            probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and
                                            particularly describing the place to be searched and
                                            the persons or things to be seized.

                                            Fifth Amendment: Rights against self-incrimination
                                            and of due process of law, not being compelled to be
                                            a witness against yourself.

                                            The IRS knows all about these rights, but that does
                                            not mean they will respect them. They can issue a
                                            summons for your private books and records, this is
                                            true, and you would have to produce them, as I said
                                            previously, but...

                                            You do not have to show them to anyone, nor do you
                                            have to submit them to anyone!

                                            IRS Tax Audit Guidelines - 242.12 books and Records of
                                            An Individual:

                                            (1) An individual taxpayer may refuse to exhibit his
                                            books and records for examination on the ground that
                                            compelling him to do so might violate his right
                                            against
                                            self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment and
                                            constitute an illegal search and seizure under the
                                            Fifth Amendment. However, IN ABSENCE OF SUCH A CLAIM,
                                            it is not error for the court to charge the jury that
                                            it may consider the refusal to produce books and
                                            records in determining willfulness.

                                            What you are telling the ITS is that you are
                                            protecting your due process right ageist self-
                                            incrimination. Having to show your books/records, the
                                            IRS will give any information gathered to the DOJ, and
                                            it may be possibly used against you. You cannot be
                                            compelled to be a witness against yourself.

                                            Now, if one wants to use theatrics in the process, as
                                            described in a few instances, fine, but at least you
                                            will know the basis for how you can proceed with
                                            confidence.

                                            Cheers!

                                            mn



                                            ____________________________________________________________________________________
                                            We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
                                            (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
                                            http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
                                          • Henry Bunbury
                                            Ask the Revenue Officer to substantiate the Secretary s discretionary Notice. If you are presumed to be a wage earner, you need to pursue the issuer of the
                                            Message 21 of 21 , Feb 9, 2007
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Ask the Revenue Officer to substantiate the Secretary's discretionary Notice.

                                              If you are presumed to be a wage earner, you need to pursue the issuer of the collection of information that were received by the Agency under the presumption of correctness.

                                              You need to inquire of the Commissioner if  the agency has a record of its determination issued to the American Employer that there exists the employer employee relationship.  Without that record, the agency is moving a naked assessment as it presumptively received collections of information are violation of federal agency records management..

                                              The solution is to pursue a correction of the administrative record by legally coercing the American Employer to send out corrected collection of information.  The improper issuance of collection of information by the payor arise as a civil fraud.

                                              The Commissioner relies upon this civil fraud to initiate its collection activities under the presumption oc what else, correctness.

                                              Besides how may the revenue office demand that you confess?  The only way for the revenue officer to demand books and records, is that you have been lawfully notice of a legal obligation accruing under Subtitle A.  Why Subtitle A, for the Employer is liable for all Subtitle C takings.


                                              ----- Original Message ----
                                              From: choicepoint111 <choicepoint111@...>
                                              To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                                              Sent: Saturday, February 3, 2007 11:42:57 AM
                                              Subject: [tips_and_tricks] IRS audit

                                              I am unable to produce necessary records which date back to 1999.I
                                              face big liability according to accountant. Any advice???




                                              Never Miss an Email
                                              Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started!
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.