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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] IRS Warns About 23c assessment arguments

Expand Messages
  • BOB GREGORY
    The IRS twists facts and misdirects people in such revenue rulings. What the notice says is true in that a 23c is not required and proof of assessment is not
    Message 1 of 3 , Jul 13, 2008

      The IRS twists facts and misdirects people in such revenue rulings.  What the notice says is true in that a 23c is not required and proof of assessment is not required before collection activity may proceed.  It is true that assertion to the contrary is frivolous. 

      What the IRS acknowledges is,
      "
      301.6203-1 specifies that an assessment is made "by an assessment officer signing the summary record of assessment," which “through supporting records” must include the "identification of the taxpayer, the character of the liability assessed, the taxable period, if applicable, and the amount of the assessment." Under the regulation, if a taxpayer requests a copy of the record of assessment, the Service will give the taxpayer “a copy of the pertinent parts of the assessment which set forth the name of the taxpayer, the date of assessment, the character of the liability assessed, the taxable period, if applicable, and the amounts assessed.” The date of the assessment is the date the summary record is signed."  But the IRS will almost never produce any document signed by an assessment officer or identify an assessment officer or show an assessment officer's appointment document.  So while the things the IRS says about providing assessment documents are true, the question arises as to what constitutes a valid assessment document.

      Why do you suppose this is?  How about because assessment officers are appointed by district directors?  Here is 26 CFR 301.6203-1.  Note the underlined portions.
      301.6203-1   Method of assessment.

      The district director and the director of the regional service center shall appoint one or more assessment officers. The district director shall also appoint assessment officers in a Service Center servicing his district. The assessment shall be made by an assessment officer signing the summary record of assessment. The summary record, through supporting records, shall provide identification of the taxpayer, the character of the liability assessed, the taxable period, if applicable, and the amount of the assessment. The amount of the assessment shall, in the case of tax shown on a return by the taxpayer, be the amount so shown, and in all other cases the amount of the assessment shall be the amount shown on the supporting list or record. The date of the assessment is the date the summary record is signed by an assessment officer. If the taxpayer requests a copy of the record of assessment, he shall be furnished a copy of the pertinent parts of the assessment which set forth the name of the taxpayer, the date of assessment, the character of the liability assessed, the taxable period, if applicable, and the amounts assessed.

      If there are no district directors, who, then, can appoint an assessment officer?  There have been no district directors since districts and regions were disestablished in March 2001 with the consequent loss of their Commissioners and Directors.

      Note that if someone submits a tax return, the amount of assessment is to be the amount of tax due shown on the return.

      Note also that the assessment date is the date an assessment officer signs the summary record.  This does not allow for the summary record to be signed by someone other than an assessment officer nor for the summary record to be unsigned.

      No tax is owed until an assessment is made.  Therefore no collection action may ever legally commence unless and until a real, properly-appointed assessment officer has signed a summary record of assessment which is supported by proper documentation for each "taxpayer" whose taxes are assessed.  These are the IRS's own rules.

      Adding to the legal problems the IRS has in accomplishing collection, even if it could produce a legal assessment, is the fact that the Federal Register Act and the Administrative Procedure Act require substantive regulations to give to laws general applicability and legal effect.  Substantive regulations under Title 26 of the United States Code are contained in 26 CFR 1,  31 and 50.  Regulations under 26 CFR 301 and 601 are not substantive regulations and do not have general applicability and legal effect, though they do govern the actions of government agencies themselves.  None of the collection sections of 26 USC is implemented by substantive regulations in 26 CFR (though all of them are implemented  in 27 CFR).  The IRS ignores this.  The DOJ says that regulations are "irrelevant."  And the courts turn a blind eye to the APA and FRA and go along.  The Supreme Court stands afar and refuses to hear any cases of this type, thus being part of the collusion.

      The problem, then, is much, much bigger than the question of whether one is owed a copy of an assessment if he requests it.  The law is very clearly on the side of the non-taxpayer.  However, the system is thoroughly corrupted and broken.  Unless and until the courts (not  juries) in large numbers issue valid judgments based on the actual law, we are screwed.  It does not matter what you can properly show in a memorandum of law.  It does not matter what Supreme Court rulings you can cite.  The judges are in cahoots with the DOJ.  If an occasional judge screws up and rules correctly according to the law, he will be straightened out and some other court will overrule him.  In Murphy v. The IRS, 460 F.3d 79 (D.C. Cir. 2006) rehearing 493 F.3d 170 (D.C. Cir. 2007), the appeals court first ruled properly for the appellant and then, upon being petitioned for re-hearing by the DOJ and without any new or different pleadings or evidence from the DOJ reversed itself into compliance with DOJ wishes.  Somebody put the word out to those judges.  This is the state of things as the judiciary relates to the laws of taxation.

      The IRS message in this and other revenue rulings is only one thing:  RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

      ===============================



      Legalbears wrote:

      To be forewarned is to be forearmed. I found this amongst research I am doing on assessments and Form 4340s. Bear

       

      Part I

      Section 6203—Method of Assessment

      26 CFR 301.6203-1: Method of assessment (Also: § 6330)

      Rev. Rul. 2007-21

      PURPOSE

      The Internal Revenue Service (Service) is aware that some taxpayers are claiming that, before the Service may collect overdue taxes, the Service must provide taxpayers with a summary record of assessment made on a Form 23C, “Assessment Certificate- Summary Record of Assessments,” that is signed by an authorized employee or officer. If a Form 23C is not provided, these taxpayers claim that the assessment is invalid,


    • wm@greenes.us
      Enclosed is our “Application for Leave to Bring an Interlocutory Appeal of This Court s July 11, 2008 Order and Request for a Stay of Proceedings in the Name
      Message 2 of 3 , Jul 17, 2008

        Enclosed is our “Application for Leave to Bring an Interlocutory Appeal of This Court's July 11, 2008 Order and Request for a Stay of Proceedings in the Name of the United States as a Defendant and Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Refusal of Notice of Appearance and to Strike All Pleadings...In the Name of the United States Because the United States is Not a Defendant in the Captioned Case, and Grant Plaintiffs' Request for the Interlocutory Appeal Without Requiring Bond”

         

        The Court's July 11, 2008 Order would have effectually turned the case into a case against the government, so I applied for Leave to Bring an Interlocutory Appeal in the attempt to have the lower court’s decision overturned to allow the case to proceed where the United States is a Plaintiff along with us instead of what the Court is trying to do where the United States would be a Defendant. 

         

        The access to the evidence where the US Attorney(s) admitted that the IRS is not an Agency and a majority of the resources going into our "public interest suit" styled as a Qui Tam (i.e., Latin for "he who sues in this matter for the king as for himself") Action, in which the United States of America is also established as Plaintiff throughout the Jurisdictional and Venue statements came from the many works forwarded to us by Loma Wharton.

         

        The idea of using an Interlocutory Appeal/Review was LegalBear’s, and the $29.10 to mail Application For Leave To Bring And Interlocutory Appeal with Memorandum came from Bob and Judy Schulz. Bob and his wife also gave us the $455.00 for the filing fee we will need if the Court allows us to move forwards with the Interlocutory Appeal/Review.

         

        When we went to the post office to mail the Application there was a postal money order in one of the packages for another $50.00 from Karen and Frank Kowalik who saw one of my Motions posted on-line.  Along with money order, they sent a complimentary copy of Frank’s book, IRS Humbug. 

         

        Of course, this is a real blessing given that the IRS put us out of work back in January, and after the neighbors came to my wife complaining with a copy of the city ordnance limiting the number of yard sales to 6, our resources are, how shall I say, extremely limited, and none of this would be happening if it were not for so many very special people guiding/helping me and my wife along the way.

         

        Blessings,

        Bill

         

         

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.