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

Re: Looking for this site

Expand Messages
  • Michael
    try this also: http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Articles/IRSNotResponsible.htm ...
    Message 1 of 16 , Mar 25, 2009
    • 0 Attachment

      try this also:

      http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Articles/IRSNotResponsible.htm

      --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "John H." <otoman@...> wrote:
      >
      > Bear, I sent this request a few days ago and you denied posting and you advised me to look a little harder. I HAVE BEEN LOOKING and that is why I asked for help. I am in a heated exchange with the IRS and have already spent MUCH time looking for this and it is alluding me. I HAVE NO MORE TIME to look for this cite. I MUST MOVE ON.
      >
      > "In my web travels I ran across a court site that went something like this. I either failed to save it or it is lost in the hundreds that I have. I cannot seem to find it again. Does anyone have this? It relates to income tax law and the Internal Revenue Agents Manual."
      >
      > Cite sounds similar to this:
      > "The Internal Revenue Manual does not have the effect of law, but it does give indication as to the actual intent of the law." Thanks
      >

    • Michael
      Sorry to post so many links it has the words: The IRS An abbreviation for the Internal Revenue Service, a
      Message 2 of 16 , Mar 25, 2009
      • 0 Attachment


        Sorry to post so many links> it has the words:

        The IRS An abbreviation for the Internal Revenue Service, a federal agency charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing internal revenue laws.  is not required to exhaust "alternative collection methods" before foreclosing tax liens, [section] 7403 contains no such requirement, a district court in Nebraska ruled. The court rejected the argument of taxpayer Jennifer Meisner to apply section 6331(j)(2)(D), which applies to levies, because levies and tax lien foreclosures are "separate mechanisms used by the IRS to collect unpaid taxes from recalcitrant taxpayers." The court also refused to enforce statements contained in an Internal Revenue Manual because an IRM(1) (Information Resource Management) See Information Systems and information management.

        (2) (Inherited Rights Mask) In NetWare 3.x and 4.
        ..... Click the link for more information.
         "does not have the force of law."

        http://www.thefreelibrary.com/No+%22alternatives%22+to+tax+lien+foreclosures-a0167584607

         

        --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "John H." <otoman@...> wrote:
        >
        > Bear, I sent this request a few days ago and you denied posting and you advised me to look a little harder. I HAVE BEEN LOOKING and that is why I asked for help. I am in a heated exchange with the IRS and have already spent MUCH time looking for this and it is alluding me. I HAVE NO MORE TIME to look for this cite. I MUST MOVE ON.
        >
        > "In my web travels I ran across a court site that went something like this. I either failed to save it or it is lost in the hundreds that I have. I cannot seem to find it again. Does anyone have this? It relates to income tax law and the Internal Revenue Agents Manual."
        >
        > Cite sounds similar to this:
        > "The Internal Revenue Manual does not have the effect of law, but it does give indication as to the actual intent of the law." Thanks
        >

      • BOB GREGORY
        *Maybe this will help:* * Rules contained in the Internal Revenue Manual, in contrast, have been held to govern the internal administration of the IRS ; they
        Message 3 of 16 , Mar 25, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Maybe this will help:

          Rules contained in the Internal Revenue Manual, in contrast, have been held to govern the internal administration of the IRS ; they do not have the binding force and effect of law. United States v. Horne [83-2 USTC ¶9548], 714 F.2d 206, 207 (1st Cir. 1983)



          "Internal revenue manual was not promulgated pursuant to any mandate or delagation of authority by Congress so that procedures set forth in manual did not have effect of rule of law and therefore were not binding on Internal Revenue Service so that manual conveyed no rights to taxpayers and taxpayeres could not allege noncompliance with those procedures to invalidate tax levies."


          [First Federal Sav. And Loan Ass'n v. Goldman, 644 F.Supp. 101 (W.D. Pa. 1986)]


          Bob


          On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 6:54 AM, John H. <otoman@...> wrote:

          Bear, I sent this request a few days ago and you denied posting and you advised me to look a little harder. I HAVE BEEN LOOKING and that is why I asked for help. I am in a heated exchange with the IRS and have already spent MUCH time looking for this and it is alluding me. I HAVE NO MORE TIME to look for this cite. I MUST MOVE ON.
           
          "In my web travels I ran across a court site that went something like this. I either failed to save it or it is lost in the hundreds that I have. I cannot seem to find it again. Does anyone have this? It relates to income tax law and the Internal Revenue Agents Manual."
           
          Cite sounds similar to this:
          "The Internal Revenue Manual does not have the effect of law, but it does give indication as to the actual intent of the law."    Thanks

        • BOB GREGORY
          *I think Bear is slipping if he let this last post through. First, the question relates to the Internal Revenue Manual and not Title 26. Here is part of the
          Message 4 of 16 , Mar 26, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            I think Bear is slipping if he let this last post through. 

            First, the question relates to the Internal Revenue Manual and not Title 26.  Here is part of the answer I provided to that question: 

            "Internal revenue manual was not promulgated pursuant to any mandate or delagation of authority by Congress so that procedures set forth in manual did not have effect of rule of law an"Internal revenue manual was not promulgated pursuant to any mandate or delagation of authority by Congress so that procedures set forth in manual did not have effect of rule of law and therefore were not binding on Internal Revenue Service so that manual conveyed no rights to taxpayers and taxpayers could not allege noncompliance with those procedures to invalidate tax levies."

            [First Federal Sav. And Loan Ass'n v. Goldman, 644 F.Supp. 101 (W.D. Pa. 1986)]

            Second, 27 USC 7806 does not have anything to do the the status of the title as prima facie evidence of the law but only to the various cross reference notes, arrangements, etc. that are included for convenience but which are not part of the law.  Here is the text of that section:


            7806. Construction of title

            (a) Cross references
            The cross references in this title to other portions of the title, or other provisions of law, where the word “see” is used, are made only for convenience, and shall be given no legal effect.
            (b) Arrangement and classification
            No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title, nor shall any table of contents, table of cross references, or similar outline, analysis, or descriptive matter relating to the contents of this title be given any legal effect. The preceding sentence also applies to the sidenotes and ancillary tables contained in the various prints of this Act before its enactment into law.

            Third, the fact that Title 26 hasnot been enacted into positive law does not make it invalid.  It remains prima facie evidence of the law and is valid except in cases when it can be shown that the statute(s) upon which a code section is based is different from the section in Title 26.  In that case the statute prevails.

            We need to move permanently past this "not positive law" crap.  It is a distraction and a waste of time.



            On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:18 PM, William M. Greene <wm@...> wrote:

            The IRS’ actions under Title 26 are merely prima facie (which is NOT Law, see 26 U.S.C. 7806(b)).

             


          • dee ru
            ... From: Lindsey Springer To: lindsey springer Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 9:20 PM Subject: Depositions of High Ranking Treasury Officials Begin April 2,
            Message 5 of 16 , Mar 26, 2009
            • 0 Attachment

              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Lindsey Springer
              To: lindsey springer
              Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 9:20 PM
              Subject: Depositions of High Ranking Treasury Officials Begin April 2,
              2009 and your help is greatly needed.


              Lindsey Springer here and I would like to report that on April 2,
              2009, I will be honored to take the Court Ordered deposition of
              R.A. Mitchell. My case is 08-278. If you have ever had a tax lien
              or assessment then listen up.

              How I was able to convince the United States District Court
              this deposition was relevant was that I subpoenaed R.A. Mitchell
              because this name was on several documents in a civil case the
              U.S. Department of Justice attached to their amended complaint
              against me.

              The Government tried to block the deposition saying R.A. Mitchell
              did not even know her name was on the documents they relied upon. I
              pointed out that was an admission of forgery. On February 24,
              2009, I took the deposition of a Kim Norman in Tulsa who swore
              that R.A. Mitchell was a stamp and not any real person.

              Needless to say if that is true all Notice of Federal Tax Liens
              are no good and I will be able to show each of you how that
              would be. In each State you have a Uniform Federal Tax Lien Act
              and this Act directs federal tax liens to comply with the Uniform
              Commercial Code. A Forged document in the County Recorder's Office
              violates both the Act and the UCC. It gets worse for the revenuers
              from here.

              Assessments are required for a lien to arise after notice of that
              assessment is given and a demand for payment. Once you refuse to
              pay then a lien arises as a matter of law. Assessments are done
              under section 6201, 6202 and 6203 of the Tax Code. Regulations
              under 26 CFR 301.6203-1 require the district director to appoint
              an assessment officer. The position of district director was
              abolished by the Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998. As of
              2000 no district directors existed to appoint summary record
              of assessment officers. The regulation above says the record
              of assessment must be signed and if the person signing was not
              assigned by the district director or director of the service
              center servicing the internal revenue district that you live in
              then no assessment exists according to the law and no notice,
              demand, or refusal, could be proven in Court for the collection
              of any purported assessment.

              I need your help. I cannot afford to take this part of the IRS down
              without some help from each of you. I need whatever you can give
              me. I realize many of you know someone who is in some way making
              some challenge to the status quo. Please realize it is rare to be
              offered the opportunity to depose high ranking treasury officials
              and even more rare to actually do it. Most attorneys would simply
              not do it for fear of attack. I hope you know by now I am not
              afraid. Concerned yes, afraid no. Imagine me getting to ask the
              questions and the U.S. Department of Justice not being able to
              do anything to obstruct me, my questions, or the answers.

              My ministry is asking each of you to consider being part of
              actually getting to ask questions. If you email me your questions
              relative to assessments, liens, and notices, I will be glad
              to consider your ideas in forming my questions. I get to take
              depositions on the 2, 6,7 and 9th of April, 2009. I realize this
              is short notice but I would not ask for held if it was not needed.

              Please stand with me and help me take this part of the IRS
              out of the County Court Houses. You can send any support
              to Lindsey Springer or Bondage Breaker's Ministries, 5147
              S. Harvard, # 116, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74135, or you can paypal at
              gnutella@.... Those of you willing to support me in
              this endeavor will be emailed a copy of the transcript of any of
              the depositions I take once it is read and signed by the deponent
              and as always your blessings for such support will be difficult
              to even count or express in words. Thank you,

              Lindsey Springer 3.26.09



              Internet Explorer 8 – Get your Hotmail Accelerated. Download free!
            • dave
              Under the authority listed to sign these notices you must look closely to the words of the law/regulation itself and not its title for there you will only find
              Message 6 of 16 , Mar 27, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Under the authority listed to sign these notices you must look closely to
                the words of the law/regulation itself and not its title for there you will
                only find authority to print.



                Why is this so?

                Answer: Government can and does often tell a lie but in its written law it
                must state the truth-even if it is cleverly hidden.



                How does the IRS get away with this clever deception?



                Answer: Is any form of printing necessarily a signature? For example, let's
                say I printed in some weird font "R.A. Mitchell" or my favorite IRS-Ogden
                Martian "Dennis Pariezak". Now of course you would say that was NOT a
                signature. Ok..now how about some italic font where the letters cursively
                connect together? If a name was printed that way, is it a signature? Nope.
                Cursive printing of a name is not a signature.



                So what you see is a dot-matrix of cursive printing-presumably of the
                pseudonym on some pocket credential. At best, it just IDENTIFIES the
                pseudonym of some party at the IRS but WITHOUT words surrounding it before
                and after-i.e. a name in a sentence of whole language construction-it means
                little.



                From: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                [mailto:tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of dee ru
                Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 3:30 PM
                To: tips
                Subject: [tips_and_tricks] IRS tax liener R A Mitchell is a stamp, not a
                real person, so is a forged document




                ----- Original Message -----
                From: Lindsey Springer
                To: lindsey springer
                Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 9:20 PM
                Subject: Depositions of High Ranking Treasury Officials Begin April 2,
                2009 and your help is greatly needed.


                Lindsey Springer here and I would like to report that on April 2,
                2009, I will be honored to take the Court Ordered deposition of
                R.A. Mitchell. My case is 08-278. If you have ever had a tax lien
                or assessment then listen up.
              • dee ru
                lindsey@mindspring.com
                Message 7 of 16 , Mar 28, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                • William Moral Greene
                  Nothing you said actually rebuts the fact that The IRS actions under Title 26 are merely prima facie (which is NOT Law, see 26 U.S.C. 7806(b)). But then
                  Message 8 of 16 , Mar 28, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Nothing you said actually rebuts the fact that "The IRS' actions
                    under Title 26 are merely prima facie (which is NOT Law, see 26 U.S.C.
                    7806(b))." But then maybe you didn't bother to look at 7806(b).



                    Blessings,

                    Bill



                    --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, BOB GREGORY <rhgusn@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > *I think Bear is slipping if he let this last post through.
                    >
                    > First, the question relates to the Internal Revenue Manual and not
                    Title
                    > 26. Here is part of the answer I provided to that question:
                    >
                  • Frog Farmer
                    ... Maybe we need to ask if anyone has ever discovered such a discrepancy between the code and the statutes. I would think a computer could be used to discover
                    Message 9 of 16 , Mar 28, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      BOB GREGORY wrote:

                      > Third, the fact that Title 26 has not been enacted into positive law
                      > does not make it invalid. It remains prima facie evidence of the law
                      > and is valid except in cases when it can be shown that the statute(s)
                      > upon which a code section is based is different from the section in
                      > Title 26. In that case the statute prevails.
                      >
                      > We need to move permanently past this "not positive law" crap. It is
                      > a distraction and a waste of time.
                      >

                      Maybe we need to ask if anyone has ever discovered such a discrepancy
                      between the code and the statutes. I would think a computer could be
                      used to discover them, but I don't have the time for it.

                      The only experience I have where the Statutes themselves came into
                      valuable play was when I had accidentally discovered the repeal of
                      HJR-192 while I was helping a friend search for something else. I had
                      always been of the belief that it was unconstitutional, and if it had
                      become an issue in any case involving me I would have acted upon my
                      belief, because an unconstitutional law is void "ab initio". But I was
                      very pleased to discover it had been repealed, and spent over 25 years
                      telling people and having them ignore it. Then SOMEBODY (pardon me for
                      forgetting who it was) made a file with all the evidence, or should I
                      say MOST of the evidence, but failed to include a picture of the actual
                      page of the repeal itself. They had references to the repeal. I don't
                      care because I actually saw it with my own two eyes myself. My photocopy
                      was stolen with some other papers of mine. Bear has a copy of that file
                      in the file section here. So many people fail to recognize the
                      ramification of that repeal, and how it "flavors" their actions in the
                      light thereof with relation to the use of FRNs and electronic credit
                      blips. Obviously, FRNs are NOT compulsory, which is the only defense to
                      using them many people would offer. I have avoided them for over 30
                      years!! Yet many believe it is impossible, and do not know the legal
                      infirmities to which their use subjects one.

                      Regards,

                      FF
                    • BOB GREGORY
                      *The last post is poorly explained or a crock, or both. Instead of saying you must look closely, why not quote exactly what you are talking about in the
                      Message 10 of 16 , Mar 28, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        The last post is poorly explained or a crock, or both.  Instead of saying "you must look closely,"  why not quote exactly what you are talking about in the law along with its citation?  The purpose of this group is to exchange as much solid information as possible.  I shall try to demonstrate.

                        Though it does not deal directly with the subject of this string of posts, the Tax Court case at this link may be of interest:

                        http://www.irstaxattorney.com/liens/part5-liens/continued/6323-Form_of_Notice.html

                        The IRM is silent on the subject of signatures on NFTL documents except in the case of those which are manually prepared.  See IRM
                        5.12.2  Lien Filing Requirements.

                        And now for the close:


                          Invalidity of Notice of Federal Tax Lien

                        1.      Contention: A notice of federal tax lien is invalid because it is unsigned or not signed by the Secretary of the Treasury, or because it was filed by someone without delegated authority.

                        The Law: The form and content of the notice of federal tax lien is controlled by federal law.  Section 6323(f)(3) provides that the form and content of the notice of federal tax lien shall be prescribed by the Secretary and shall be valid notwithstanding any other provision of law regarding the form or content of a notice of lien.  Treas. Reg. ' 301.6323(f)-1(d) further provides that the notice of federal tax lien is filed on a Form 668, which must identify the taxpayer, the tax liability giving rise to the lien, and the date the assessment arose.

                        Relevant Case Law:

                        United States v. Union Cent. Life Ins. Co., 368 U.S. 291, 294 (1961) – the Supreme Court held that the form used for filing a federal tax lien does not have to comply with an additional state law requirement that it describe the property affected, although the lien did have to be filed in a designated state office.

                        Tolotti v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-86, 83 T.C.M. (CCH) 1436 (2002) – in this collection due process case, the court upheld the validity of a notice of federal tax lien filed on Form 668(Y) and bearing a facsimile signature, although the lien was not certified as required by Nevada statute.  The court noted that it is “well-settled” that the form and content of the notice of federal tax lien is controlled by federal, not state, law.

                        Section 6323(a) provides that “[t]he lien imposed by section 6321 shall not be valid as against any purchaser, holder of a security interest, mechanic’s lien holder, or judgment lien creditor until notice thereof which meets the requirements of subsection (f) has been filed by the Secretary.”  Section 7701(a)(11)(B) defines “Secretary” to include the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate.  Section 7701(a)(12)(A)(i) defines the term “delegate”, as used with respect to the Secretary of the Treasury, to mean any officer, employee, or agency of the Treasury Department duly authorized by the Secretary directly, or indirectly by redelegation of authority, to perform a certain function.  See, e.g., Delegation Order 5-4,  Rev. 1) (delegating authority to sign notices of federal tax lien).  There is no requirement in the statute or regulation that the notice of federal tax lien must be signed when filed.

                        Relevant Case Law:

                        Thompson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-204, 88 T.C.M. (CCH) 219 (2004) – in a collections due process case the court rejected petitioner’s arguments as frivolous and groundless, including petitioner’s contention that the notice of federal tax lien that he received was invalid because it was not signed by the Secretary.  The Secretary had delegated the authority to issue notices of lien to certain IRS employees.

                        Uveges v. United States, 2002-2 U.S.T.C. ¶ 50,740 (D. Nev. 2002) B the court noted that with respect to section 6323, among other Code sections, which use the term “Secretary,” “Secretary” refers to the Secretary of the Treasury and any delegates.  See section 7701(a)(11)(B).

                        In re Kroll, 74 A.F.T.R.2d 94-6161 (W.D.Mich 1994) – in this bankruptcy case the taxpayer-debtors challenged the notice of federal tax lien on the ground that it was not signed.  The court found that neither the statute nor regulations relating to such lien require that the notice be signed, nor had the debtors provided any explicit authority requiring that the notice be signed to be valid.


                        I believe that this last citation may be a problem for  Lindsey Springer because if a notice of lien can be valid without a signature, then it can be argued that a false signature does no harm. 

                        Mind you, I am not pulling for the government in this matter.  But from a lot of study and bitter experience, I know how the government weasels work.





                        On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 7:36 PM, dave <dwissel@...> wrote:

                        Under the authority listed to sign these notices you must look closely to
                        the words of the law/regulation itself and not its title for there you will
                        only find authority to print.

                        Why is this so?

                        Answer: Government can and does often tell a lie but in its written law it
                        must state the truth-even if it is cleverly hidden.

                        How does the IRS get away with this clever deception?

                        Answer: Is any form of printing necessarily a signature? For example, let's
                        say I printed in some weird font "R.A. Mitchell" or my favorite IRS-Ogden
                        Martian "Dennis Pariezak". Now of course you would say that was NOT a
                        signature. Ok..now how about some italic font where the letters cursively
                        connect together? If a name was printed that way, is it a signature? Nope.
                        Cursive printing of a name is not a signature.

                        So what you see is a dot-matrix of cursive printing-presumably of the
                        pseudonym on some pocket credential. At best, it just IDENTIFIES the
                        pseudonym of some party at the IRS but WITHOUT words surrounding it before
                        and after-i.e. a name in a sentence of whole language construction-it means
                        little.

                        From: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                        [mailto:tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of dee ru
                        Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 3:30 PM
                        To: tips
                        Subject: [tips_and_tricks] IRS tax liener R A Mitchell is a stamp, not a
                        real person, so is a forged document



                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: Lindsey Springer
                        To: lindsey springer
                        Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 9:20 PM
                        Subject: Depositions of High Ranking Treasury Officials Begin April 2,
                        2009 and your help is greatly needed.

                        Lindsey Springer here and I would like to report that on April 2,
                        2009, I will be honored to take the Court Ordered deposition of
                        R.A. Mitchell. My case is 08-278. If you have ever had a tax lien
                        or assessment then listen up.


                      • BOB GREGORY
                        *Hey, Bill, you are right that I didn t rebut that statement. I merely pointed out that being prima facie evidence of the law is ENOUGH. The law of the
                        Message 11 of 16 , Mar 28, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hey, Bill, you are right that I didn't rebut that statement.  I merely pointed out that being prima facie evidence of the law is ENOUGH.  The law of the United States says so, and all the crappy arguments about "not positive law" cannot change that.

                          I'm afraid it is you, Bill, who does not bother to look at things.  I not only wrote about 7806 in my post, but I quoted it in full. 

                          Here it is again, together with an interpretation from a web site so you don't think I am the only one who reads it that way.


                          Title 26 USC Sec 7806, Construction of title
                          (b) Arrangement and classification
                          No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title, nor shall any table of contents, table of cross references, or similar outline, analysis, or descriptive matter relating to the contents of this title be given any legal effect.

                          Among other things, this means...

                          1. Sections or portions of law don't have to be written together, but in fact, required sections can be located hundreds of sections apart from each other. (i.e. Sec. 1 "upon taxable income" might require Sec. 861 "how to determine taxable income")
                          2. Tables, outlines, analysis, descriptions of contents, have no "legal effect," i.e. only the words within are law.
                          You may wish to compare that with what I said in my previous post.

                          Your point about 7806 is just plain wrong. And, again I point out, the entire discussion of Title 26 was useless because the question asked was about the Internal Revenue Manual.




                          On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 2:03 PM, William Moral Greene <wm@...> wrote:

                          Nothing you said actually rebuts the fact that "The IRS' actions


                          under Title 26 are merely prima facie (which is NOT Law, see 26 U.S.C.
                          7806(b))." But then maybe you didn't bother to look at 7806(b).

                          Blessings,

                          Bill

                          --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, BOB GREGORY <rhgusn@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > *I think Bear is slipping if he let this last post through.

                          >
                          > First, the question relates to the Internal Revenue Manual and not
                          Title
                          > 26. Here is part of the answer I provided to that question:
                          >


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