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

Lindsey Springer explains defense and issues resulting from Trial on PRA and Form 1040

Expand Messages
  • The Handyman
    ... From: Lindsey Springer To: linsdey@mindspring.com Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 11:17 AM Subject: Lindsey Springer explains defense and issues
    Message 1 of 6 , Nov 19, 2009
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 11:17 AM
      Subject: Lindsey Springer explains defense and issues resulting from Trial on PRA and Form 1040

          Lindsey Springer here and through some careful clarification I am able to write to you regarding my defense in the case which, through Jury Instructions and an allen instruction late in the game, I was found guilty of conspiring to defraud the IRS by impeding, impairing, obstructing and defeating the lawful functions of the IRS in the computation, ascertainment, assessment and collection of income taxes (Count One)(form 1040). I was also found guilty by the same jury of attempting to evade income taxes for calender years 2000, 2003 and 2005(form 1040). I was also found guilty of willfully failing to file a Form 1040 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return for calender year 2002 and 2004(form 1040).

      IF YOU READ THIS SLOWLY AND CAREFULLY YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM THE WAY I SEE IT-

       

          As you are all aware I tried to present a complete and good faith defense to the claims alleged that under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 that I was not subject to any penalty for failure to answer the questions on Form 1040 for any years because that Form, according to my understanding, miserably failed to comply with the requirements of 44 U.S.C. section 3506(c)(1)(B). Also, to my understanding as well, the Form 1040 appeared to me that it did not contain any of the information certified by the IRS to OMB on Form 83-I that OMB required Form 1040 to display and inform the public for any year. OMB states that 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3) and 1320.9 govern the certification made by the IRS to get OMB # 1545-0074.

          I was allowed to read from the GAO Report from 2005 which on Page 34 zoomed into the heart of the matter as far as I am concerned. That report is located at the United States Government’s Web Page: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05424.pdf

          On this page it explains how USGAO tells US IRS they are violating the Paperwork Reduction Act on Forms that merely state "the Internal Revenue Laws of the United States" when informing the person what specific law surrounds and supports the IRS’s request for the information on Forms such as Form 1040.

          As you can read for yourself, USGAO reports that US IRS thinks by telling you the specific provisions instead of the phrase "the Internal Revenue Laws of the United States" you would be burdened and as a result believe it is unnecessary and inappropriate to comply with Federal Law. In short, my understanding of the IRS position taken with GAO is they think telling you and me the law would confuse you.

          Problem is that no where on the Form 1040 could I find the words "the Internal Revenue Laws of the United States." Look at any Form 1040 for yourself and decide for yourself whether I misled you in any way. If I have misled you in any way I am sorry and please do not ever take my word for anything. If you are like me then always go check things out for yourself. Even under the US IRS position if the Form 1040 does not state "the Internal Revenue Laws of the United States" then Form 1040 would not comply with even IRS’s ambiguous standard. The way I read it USGAO reported to Congress US IRS was in direct violation of the Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB Regulations. Hmmm, where did they get that idea?

          Anyway, during the trial the US DOJ continued to maintain the Form 1040 did not have to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 because the obligation to file a "return" was mandated by statute. Here is an exchange during cross examination of me by Charles O’Reilly from the US DOJ:

      Q. There is absolutely nothing in Dole that supports

      10 your position, is there?

      11 A. Dole says typical information collection requests

      12 include tax forms. The issues --

      13 Q. Does it ever mention the Internal Revenue Service in

      14 its entire opinion?

      15 A. No, does not mention the Internal Revenue Service.

      16 Q. Mr. Springer, does it ever mention the Form 1040?

      17 A. No, it does not.

      See Transcript, page 23, line 9.

      O’Reilly- Cross

      Q. You've read, for example, the GAO report that you

      4 referenced on Tuesday?

      5 A. Yes.

      6 Q. When you were reading that to the jury on Tuesday,

      7 you almost omitted reading the passage in footnote 50

      8 until Mr. O'Reilly, I, objected and that phrase was,

      9 "However, the public protection provision may not apply

      10 if a collection is mandated by statute (e.g., the

      11 requirement to file a tax return)."

      12 Please tell the jury why you were going to omit that

      13 statement.

      14 A. Actually, I wasn't intending to omit it. I believe

      15 it was covered on page 34 quite extensively in the

      16 report, which I read to the jury, that stated that the

      17 IRS, if they want to claim a specific form is mandatory,

      18 that they are required to cite the specific statute and

      19 state on the form your obligation to answer these

      20 questions is mandatory. And that's what the report said.

      21 Q. Mr. Springer, isn't it a fact it is mandatory and

      22 you know it?

      23 A. What is mandatory?

      24 Q. The filing of a return.

      25 A. My understanding of the Form 1040 is that in order

       

      Page 11 Ends

       

      LINDSEY SPRINGER - CROSS BY MR. O'REILLY

      1 for it to be mandatory they must tell you that, they must

      2 tell me that, and they must cite their authority for it.

      3 And that's what the Government Accountability Office said,

      4 and I agree with them. In fact, I had been making that

      5 statement for years before the report was actually

      6 drafted.

      7 Q. Mr. Springer, how many cases have you read involving

      8 the Paperwork Reduction Act in criminal willful failure

      9 to file cases?

      10 A. Every case ever mentioned the word Paperwork

      11 Reduction Act I've read them over and over and over

      12 again.

      13 Q. Is your reading of those cases a basis for your good

      14 faith?

      15 A. Reading those cases develops but is not the basis

      16 for.

      17 Q. That's because there is no case that has said what

      18 you claim. In fact, every case has stated, that

      19 addresses it, that failure to file a tax return is not

      20 protected by the Paperwork Reduction Act; isn't that

      21 true?

      22 A. That is not true.

      23 Q. Name one case that is a published opinion that says

      24 otherwise, sir.

      25 A. First of all --

       

      Page 12 Ends

       

      LINDSEY SPRINGER - CROSS BY MR. O'REILLY

      1 Q. Sir, I asked you a question, to name a case. I

      2 didn't ask you to opine.

      3 THE COURT: Wait just a minute. First of all, I

      4 need to understand the question. Does your question

      5 relate to criminal prosecutions for willful failure to

      6 file?

      7 MR. O'REILLY: Yes, Your Honor.

      8 THE COURT: Okay. Proceed.

      9 MR. SPRINGER: United States v. Collins, 1990,

      10 Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, footnotes 12 and 13,

      11 clarify it with undeniable terms.

      12 Q. (BY MR. O'REILLY) Mr. Springer, is that the case in

      13 which the Court said, "Dickstein" -- who was referenced,

      14 I believe, by Mr. Bennett, "thus lacked any arguable

      15 basis in fact or law to argue that the non-compliance of

      16 the 1040 forms, which defendant failed to file, did not

      17 comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act. His argument is

      18 legally frivolous." Is that the case you're talking

      19 about?

      20 A. That is part of the case that I'm talking about.

      21 MR. SPRINGER: Your Honor, I object? He --

      22 he did not read the entire opinion just then. And when I

      23 did that, he made me read something else. Could you

      24 please have him read footnotes 12 and 13 to the jury so

      25 that they are not misled by his statement?

       

      Page 13 Ends

       

      LINDSEY SPRINGER - CROSS BY MR. O'REILLY

      1 THE COURT: I need to see what footnotes 12 and

      2 13 say.

      3 MR. SPRINGER: Defendants' Exhibit Number 74,

      4 Your Honor.

      5 THE COURT: First of all, that Collins case

      6 doesn't involve a charge of willful failure to file.

      7 Given my understanding of this line of questioning, I'm

      8 having a hard time with the relevance of this case to

      9 this line of questioning, but the relevant -- the

      10 footnotes that are involved here are which?

      11 MR. SPRINGER: Twelve and 13, Your Honor.

      12 THE COURT: Let's -- first of all -- we'll

      13 address that one step at a time. First of all,

      14 Mr. O'Reilly, it was my understanding -- and let's just

      15 make sure that all concerned understand where the matter

      16 stands at this point. It was my understanding that your

      17 question was whether Mr. Springer was aware of a case in

      18 which the charge was willful failure to file and the

      19 Court held that the Paperwork Reduction Act was a

      20 substantive defense. Is that correct?

      21 MR. O'REILLY: Yes, Your Honor.

      22 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Springer, you may answer

      23 that question.

      24 MR. SPRINGER: Was a substantive defense?

      25 Q. (BY MR. O'REILLY) Yes, sir.

       

      Page 14 Ends

      LINDSEY SPRINGER - CROSS BY MR. O'REILLY

      1 A. I don't know of any case where a substantive defense

      2 was raised on willful failure to file a tax form, Form

      3 1040, ever.

      4 THE COURT: Now, Mr. O'Reilly can read those two

      5 footnotes or Mr. Springer can read those two footnotes

      6 and you can do it now or later. It seems likely that one

      7 way or another they'll be read. The relevance is another

      8 matter, but you may proceed.

      9 MR. O'REILLY: Thank you, Your Honor.

      10 Q. (BY MR. O'REILLY) Mr. Springer, stepping back a

      11 bit, you read, on Tuesday,

       

       

          As you can see, Mr. O’Reilly chose not to proceed into Footnote 12 and 13 of the Collins decision. I am reproducing those two footnotes for you to see how Mr. O’Reilly’s "filing of a return is mandatory" question was actually addressed in Footnote 12:

      U.S. v. COLLINS, 920 F.2d 619, 630 (10th Cir. 1990)

       

      [fn12] In United States v. Tedder, 787 F.2d 540, 542 (10th Cir. 1986), this court held that tax forms were not information collection requests subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act because the filing of income tax returns was obligatory. This holding is superseded by the Supreme Court's analysis in Dole v. United Steelworkers, ___ U.S. ___, 110 S.Ct. 929, 933, 108 L.Ed.2d 23 (1990), which included federal income tax forms within the category of information collection requests under the Act. Dole would also appear to call into question the holdings in Snyder v. IRS, 596 F. Supp. 240 (N.D.Ind. 1984) and Cameron v. IRS, 593 F. Supp. 1540 (N.D.Ind. 1984), aff'd 773 F.2d 126 (7th Cir. 1985), both of which held the Paperwork Reduction Act inapplicable to IRS forms. However, Dole does not contravene our recent holding in Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1444 (10th Cir. 1990) that IRS summonses do not constitute information requests under the Act because they are issued in the course of an investigation directed against a specific individual or entity. See 44 U.S.C. § 3518(c)(1)(B)(ii).

      Footnote 13 says:

      U.S. v. COLLINS, 920 F.2d 619, 630 (10th Cir. 1990)

       

      [fn13] In United States v. Weiss, 914 F.2d 1514, 1520-22 (2d Cir. 1990), the Second Circuit held that the Paperwork Reduction Act did not preclude prosecution for filing false medicare and Medicaid claims, despite the fact that the forms in question did not contain OMB control numbers. Distinguishing Smith, where defendants were prosecuted for failure to file a Plan of Operations with the Forest Service, the Second Circuit reasoned that the Act "`only protects a person from penalties for failing to files information It does not protect one who files information which is false.'" Id. at 1522 (quoting Funk, The Paperwork Reduction Act: Paperwork Reduction Meets Administrative Law, 24 Harv.J. on Legis. 1, 77 n. 411 (1987)) (emphasis in original). We recognize that because defendant was charged with tax evasion and not failure to file tax returns, he technically was not being prosecuted for failure to provide information. Had defendant's tax evasion been effectuated through the filing of falsified tax returns, Weiss would dictate that no Paperwork Reduction Defense would be available to him. But because the provision of information in 1040 forms is inexorably linked to the statutory requirement to pay taxes, and defendant failed to file such forms, the Paperwork Reduction Act was applicable to such conduct.

          REMEMBER WHERE MR. O’REILLY SAID IN THE DOLE CASE THE FORM 1040 WAS NOT EVER MENTIONED OR THE PHRASE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE WAS NOT MENTIONED?

      NOT LINDSEY SPRINGER BUT THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT SAID "which included federal income tax forms within the category of information collection requests under the Act." See footnote 12 above.

          Remember when Mr. O’Reilly pointed out page 31 and footnote 50 which connected this paragrarph:

      • a statement that the public has a right not to respond to the request for information if a valid OMB control number is not displayed.50

       

      Footnote 50 reads:

      50 The requirements for this statement and the OMB number are together known as the "public protection provision," in that a person cannot be penalized for not responding if either the control number or the statement is absent. However, the public protection provision may not apply if the collection is mandated by statute (e.g., the requirement to file a tax return).

       

          I have reproduced page 34 herein for you to read and understand what my claim regarding the "Mandated by Statute" position is:

      In the case of IRS, most of the agency’s noncompliance resulted from forms that did not cite the tax law that requires the information to be collected. OMB regulations and guidance state that agencies are to cite the law or other authority whenever the collection of information is required to obtain or retain a benefit (such as a passport or Social Security payment) or is mandatory (with civil or criminal sanctions imposed for failure to respond).51 However, the following typical PRA notice on IRS forms omits the required reference to the law:

      We ask for the information on this form to carry out the Internal Revenue laws of the United States. You are required to give us the information. We need it to ensure that you are complying with these laws and to allow us to figure and collect the right amount of tax.

      When we discussed with IRS officials why the specific tax law requiring information to be reported was missing in one of our case studies, the IRS Reports Clearance Officer stated that IRS’s burden estimation methodology increases the burden estimate when a specific law is mentioned in order to include the time required to read the law. Further, IRS officials told us that citing the "Internal Revenue laws of the United States" provided adequate disclosure and that on many forms, it would be impractical to cite a specific law authorizing the collection. Nonetheless, the regulations require citation of the law so that respondents are fully informed. Until IRS corrects this language on the forms, respondents may not know what law is associated with the information requested.

      If information collections do not comply with the PRA requirements described, the public may be asked to provide information without appropriate disclosure of the information that would allow the public to exercise scrutiny of agencies’ collections.

      What is "public to exercise scrutiny of agency collections" mean?  "You are not required to provide information on a Form subjet to the Paperwork Reduction Act unless the Form displays a valid OMB control number (issued in accordance with this subchapter).

          As I explained to the Jury, it is my understanding that if the IRS contends answering their questions on Form 1040 is "mandated by statute" then there is two things the IRS must display first to OMB for approval and then to the public at which the Form 1040 is intended.

          First, they must cite the mandating statute of the tax code that makes it mandatory to answer questions on Form 1040 and Second, they must write these words: Your obligation to answer the questions on this Form is Mandatory. It is my and USGAO’s understanding that without these two displays on Form 1040 there is no obligation whatsoever. Furthermore, I could not find any code section that even mentions form 1040 or defines the term "return."

          I did find section 6011 which begins "when required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title...." This group of words would clearly support the 10th Circuit’s position that the obligation stems from a request for information and not from some mandating statute as Mr. O’Reilly suggested.

          I, like USGAO, could not find the words on Form 1040 "Internal Revenue laws of the United States" or "your obligation is mandatory." In fact, I could not find any words on the Form 1040 which identify any statute or any statement of mandatory whatsoever.

          During the trial on more than one occasion the District Judge told the Jury that the Form 1040 did not violate the Paperwork Reduction Act and in fact did comply.

          As you can see the US DOJ says the requirement to file Form 1040 is mandatory ["That's because there is no case that has said what (18) you claim. In fact, every case has stated, that (19) addresses it, that failure to file a tax return is not (20) protected by the Paperwork Reduction Act; isn't that 21 true"] and that the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 does not apply to that obligation (why he had me read footnote 50 on page 31) and the District Judge told the Jury the Form 1040 did comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act repeatedly.

          In fact, in the middle of my closing argument Mr. O’Reilly objected to statements I was making on the grounds the obligation to file was not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act and the District Judge response to this objection was to tell once again the Jury that the Form 1040 did not violate the Paperwork Reduction Act and did comply.

          So, I am only allowed in good faith to show why I believed the Form 1040 did not comply with Federal Law (Position 1) and the US DOJ is opposing arguing the Form 1040 is not subject to the public protection of the Paperwork Reduction Act in effort to oppose my defense (Position 2) while the District Judge continues to tell the Jury the Form complies in all respects with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Position 3).

          CAN YOU NOW SEE WHAT THE PROBLEM IS WITH THE IRS? Do you think the jury got confused?

          The United States Government Accountability Office says IRS must comply and does not.

          U.S. DOJ argues the IRS does not have to comply because the obligation to file is statutory and a mandate.

          The United States Judicial Branch says IRS must comply but without any findings of facts whatsoever. The District Court says Form 1040 does not violate the Paperwork Reduction Act.

          Springer argued the Form 1040 is required to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB Regulations and further argued Form 1040 contains none of the required displayed information and in fact does not comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 or OMB regulations IRS certified they would comply with.

       

          Anyway, I hope this helps you understand why your support for me during this defense was and remains vitally important to all of us. On August 31, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reported and published its decision which, true, I did lose on whether failure to pay penalties and interest were penalties protected by the Public Protection Provision (on its way to Supreme Court), Title 44, Section 3512(1995), but what the Panel did say should show you where I am and where the 10th Circuit is stuck:

          "Mr. Springer has not alleged any cognizable PRA violations with respect to those penalties. Instead, the only PRA violations he asserts concern the IRS Form 1040. The failure-to-pay penalties have an independent and separate statutory basis under the Internal Revenue Code, however, that is not based on Mr. Springer’s failure to file Form 1040s for the tax years in question."

          "Although Mr. Springer’s appellate briefs are far from a model of clarity, he has managed to advance several arguments in this appeal that raise difficult issues under both the tax code and the PRA."

          "While we commend the Commissioner for the extremely helpful statement of the case and statement of facts in his response brief, we also note that the Commissioner himself has made a frivolous argument in his response brief and motion for sanctions that mischaracterizes what happened in Mr. Springer’s prior appeal to this court

      ."

       

          I know some of you probably wonder why this all matters.  When the United States Government Accountability Office and United States Treasury cannot agree on what the law requires regarding Form 1040, that is a big deal and something we should never overlook.  When the United States Government Accountability Office and United States Department of Justice do not agree on what the law requires regarding Form 1040, that is a big deal and something we should never overlook.   When the United States Government Accountability Office and the United States Judiciary cannot agree on what the law requires regarding Form 1040, that is a big deal and something we cannot ever overlook.   When a member of the public is willing to expose it all so the rule of law can once again prevail in the life of every American regarding Form 1040, that is priceless.

          The Court is allowing me to continue to receive support during my defense of this case and actually made an exception yesterday to its order which does allow you to continue to support me without jeopardizing my bond conditions.  I am so thankful as I thought I had made it this far and it was to be for nothing.  I can no longer receive any support in the name of "Bondage Breaker's Ministries" until the Court Order is reversed or changed.  I can only receive support in the name of Lindsey Springer.  I can receive support through paypal at gnutella@... or lindsey@....  As always, I can receive support at 5147 S. Harvard, # 116, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74135 in the name of Lindsey Springer.  Please continue to show your support for me and the issues I am on.

       

          THANK YOU FOR STANDING WITH ME.  I AM SORRY IF YOU THINK I LET YOU DOWN  BY BEING FOUND GUILTY.  I WILL CONTINUE TO DEFEND MY UNDERSTANDING TILL MY LAST BREATH OR THE COURT SYSTEM ADDRESSES THE MERITS OF MY CLAIMS HEAD ON WIN, LOSE OR DRAW.

       

      November 18, 2009

       

       

       

       

    • Michael
      Saturday 21 November 2009 All well and good...but totally futile. It is dizzying to follow this interaction, and from one who detests the federal government
      Message 2 of 6 , Nov 21, 2009
        Saturday 21 November 2009

        All well and good...but totally futile. It is
        dizzying to follow this interaction, and from
        one who detests the federal government and its
        collection arm, of whatever standing.

        Imagine what it must be like for a jury to sort
        out the dotting of "i"s and crossing of "t"s
        when the jury believes taxes are required?

        The point to be learned here, as with most ALL
        tax-related cases is: NEVER PUT YOURSELF IN A
        POSITION TO ARGUE WITH THE IRS ABOUT THEIR RULES
        IN A COURTROOM ENVIRONMENT. Period.

        The IRS is defeatd by making them prove the
        burden that one is a taxpayer in the first place,
        much like FF's IMOC where one demands proof that
        one is who one claims to be in order to intrude
        upon your life.

        Step one is always the most important. Springer
        is arguing the minutia of step 37, paragraph 37,
        footnote 37, etc, etc, etc. Do not have high
        expectations of having a jury follow, let alone
        buy it, especially when the IRS hammers back and
        the courts support them.

        Step one:

        Dear IRS:

        I would love to comply with all the laws regarding
        the payment of taxes, but I am unclear on where the
        law stands in this matter. Please provide me with
        the law that states I am required to pay taxes.

        ---
        Of course, this does not apply if one has signed a
        tax form agreeing to be a taxpayer. You have then
        provided your own evidence, and asking the IRS to
        prove is silly.

        It ain't easy, but it ain't impossible, either.

        Cheers!

        mn
      • E Junker
        That was my tack as well. Better to make them show you exactly where it is written you are a taxpayer. Never sign an IRS form. Make them sign it for you.
        Message 3 of 6 , Nov 21, 2009
          That was my tack as well. Better to make them show you exactly where it is written you are a taxpayer. Never sign an IRS form. Make them sign it for you.

          Once in court you're fighting a corrupt system from the inside. The judges have no incentive to see you win and cause them to lose influence, power and funding. They're fiduciaries, you know. ;-)





          Saturday 21 November 2009

          All well and good...but totally futile. It is
          dizzying to follow this interaction, and from
          one who detests the federal government and its
          collection arm, of whatever standing.

          Imagine what it must be like for a jury to sort
          out the dotting of "i"s and crossing of "t"s
          when the jury believes taxes are required?
        • Carole
          Though I agree with your take on how Springer handled his case, you state below, which I also agree with, however: this implies that if you EVER signed a tax
          Message 4 of 6 , Nov 22, 2009
            Though I agree with your take on how Springer handled his case, you state
            below, which I also agree with, however:
            this implies that if you EVER signed a tax form you are agreeing to be a
            taxpayer. You leave no way out for the average person. There has to be a
            way to extricate yourself once you had signed your first tax form maybe as
            young as 13 years old. Carole

            > Of course, this does not apply if one has signed a
            > tax form agreeing to be a taxpayer. You have then
            > provided your own evidence, and asking the IRS to
            > prove is silly.
            > mn
          • Patrick M
            It appears to me that we need to DENY/DISPUTE/REBUT the PRESUMPTIONS & INFERENCES we CREATED. MAXIMS OF LAW The presumption is always in favor of the one who
            Message 5 of 6 , Nov 22, 2009

              It appears to me that we need to DENY/DISPUTE/REBUT the PRESUMPTIONS & INFERENCES we CREATED.

               

              MAXIMS OF LAW

              The presumption is always in favor of the one who denies.

              All things are presumed to be lawfully done and duly performed until the contrary is proved.

              It is in the nature of things, that he who denies a fact is not bound to prove it.

              The burden of proof lies upon him who affirms, not on him who denies.

              The claimant is always bound to prove: the burden of proof lies on him.

              Upon the one alleging, not upon him denying, rests the duty of proving.

              What is not proved and what does not exist are the same; it is not a defect of the law, but of proof.

              Where truth is, fiction of law does not exist.

               

              We CREATED the PRESUMPTION that we had an INCOME TAX LIABILITY when we REQUESTED WITHHOLDING or FILED a tax return.

               

              26 CFR 1.1-1…In general, the tax is payable upon the basis of returns rendered by persons liable therefor (subchapter A (sections 6001 and following), chapter 61 of the Code) or at the source of the income by withholding. [rest omitted]

              http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/12feb20041500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/26cfr1.1-1.htm  

               

              Otherwise wouldn’t we have claimed EXEMPT on our W-4?

               

              I claim exemption from withholding for 2009, and I certify that I meet both of the following conditions for exemption.

              ·         Last year I had a right to a refund of all federal income tax withheld because I had no tax liability and

              ·         This year I expect a refund of all federal income tax withheld because I expect to have no tax liability.

              http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw4.pdf

               

               

              26 USC 3402. Income tax collected at source

              (a) Requirement of withholding

              (1) In general

              Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables or computational procedures prescribed by the Secretary. [REST OMITTED]

              n) Employees incurring no income tax liability

              Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an employer shall not be required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter upon a payment of wages to an employee if there is in effect with respect to such payment a withholding exemption certificate (in such form and containing such other information as the Secretary may prescribe) furnished to the employer by the employee certifying that the employee—

              (1) incurred no liability for income tax imposed under subtitle A for his preceding taxable year, and

              (2) anticipates that he will incur no liability for income tax imposed under subtitle A for his current taxable year.

              The Secretary shall by regulations provide for the coordination of the provisions of this subsection with the provisions of subsection (f).

              http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00003402----000-.html

               

              Now unless the DISTRICT DIRECTOR has ALREADY made a DETIRMINATION that we are LIABLE for SUBTITLE A INCOME TAX & given us the REQUIRED NOTICE that we are REQUIRED to file a RETURN, WHY would we have any LEGAL REASON to “believe” that we had a “liability for income tax imposed under subtitle A” for either the preceding or current “taxable year” or any LEGAL DUTY to FILE a return?

               

              26 CFR 31.6001-6   Notice by district director requiring returns, statements, or the keeping of records.

              The district director may require any person, by notice served upon him, to make such returns, render such statements, or keep such specific records as will enable the district director to determine whether or not such person is liable for any of the taxes to which the regulations in this part have application.

              http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=de87314e866de9fe6728f4c7589924f1&rgn=div8&view=text&node=26:15.0.1.1.1.7.16.6&idno=26

               

              26 USC 7701(a) (23) Taxable year

              The term “taxable year” means the calendar year, or the fiscal year ending during such calendar year, upon the basis of which the taxable income is computed under subtitle A. “Taxable year” means, in the case of a return made for a fractional part of a year under the provisions of subtitle A or under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, the period for which such return is made.

              http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00007701----000-.html

               

              In which case in GOOD FAITH shouldn’t we give the IRS LEGAL CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE of the FACTS as we know them & inform them that we apparently REQUESTED WITHHOLDING and/or FILED a RETURN in ERROR so they have an opportunity to RESPOND and/or CORRECT matters?

               

              Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading..." U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299. See also U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032.

               

               

              "Silence is a species of conduct, and constitutes an implied representation of the existence of the state of facts in question, and the estoppel is accordingly a species of estoppel by misrepresentation. [cite omitted] When silence is of such a character and under such circumstances that it would become a fraud upon the other party to permit the party who has kept silent to deny what his silence has induced the other to believe and act upon, it will operate as an estoppel." Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932 (1906)

               

               

              "Full and conclusive proof is not required where a party has the burden of proving a negative, but it is necessary that the proof be at least sufficient to render the existence of the negative probable, or to create a fair and reasonable presumption of the negative until the contrary is shown. (Footnotes omitted.) 30 Am. Jur. 2d EVIDENCE 1163, at 338 (1967). ACCORD, 31A C.J.S. EVIDENCE 112, at 190 (1964); E. Cleary, MCCORMICK'S HANDBOOK OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE 337, at 786 (2d ed. 1972).  Although the procedures here employed are not to be commended, measured by the test just stated, the plaintiffs' proof of lack of implementing city legislation was sufficient. In so holding, we note particularly that the City was given an adequate opportunity, both at trial and in post-trial proceedings, to produce any implementing city ordinances, charter provisions or regulations, but did not do so."  HIGGINS v. SALEWSKY, 17 Wn. App. 207, 210, 211, 212, 213, 562 P.2d 655 (March 28, 1977).

              http://www.mrsc.org/mc/courts/appellate/017wnapp/017wnapp0207.htm

               

              Patrick in California

               

              "Oh Lucy! - You Gotta Lotta'Splainin To Do" Ricky Richardo

               

               

               

              --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com , "Carole" <Carole11@...> wrote:

              >  

              > Though I agree with your take on how Springer handled his case, you state

              > below, which I also agree with, however:

              > this implies that if you EVER signed a tax form  you are agreeing to be a

              > taxpayer.   You leave no way out for the average person.   There has to be a

              > way to extricate yourself once you had signed your first tax form maybe as

              > young as 13 years old.    Carole

            • Carrol
              I think Springer only had a portion of the requirements. There is more that would have made that case much stronger. The IRS, the Commissioner of Internal
              Message 6 of 6 , Nov 26, 2009
                I think Springer only had a portion of the requirements. There
                is more that would have made that case much stronger.

                The IRS, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Department
                of the Treasury are all required to also comply with the Privacy
                Act of 1974 and the Federal Register Act.

                In Order to comply with these, 2 Treasury Directives are in place -
                TD 25-03 Subject: Filing Documents for Publication with the
                Office of the Federal Register;
                TD 25-04 Subject: The Privacy Act of 1974, As Amended.

                In the Federal Register publication, the IRS is required to comply
                with the Paperwork Reduction Act.

                Its not just the form that requires it, the regulations themselves are
                required to be published in the Federal Register.

                Failure of the IRS to comply with the Federal Register Act means that
                they have not established general applicability and legal effect.
                re: 44 USC 1506, and 5 USC 553.

                49 Stat. 501 Sect 5:
                "There shall be published in the Federal Register (1) all Presidential
                proclamations
                and Executive orders, except such as have no general applicability
                and legal effect or are effective only against Federal agencies or
                persons in their capacity as officers, agents or employees thereof; (2)
                such documents or classes of documents as the President shall determine
                from time to time have general applicability and legal effect; and
                (3) such documents or classes or documents as may be required so to
                be published by Act of the Congress: Provided, That for the purposes of
                this Act every document or order which shall prescribe a penalty shall be
                deemed to have general applicability and legal effect."

                So I figured a worthwhile exercise was to see if I could establish
                the regulations that general applicability and legal effect with
                regard to the 1040 form income section.

                I gathered a list from 26 CFR 602.101 to identify the authorized
                regulations attached to the 1040 form income section.
                There are over 100 of them.

                If 26 USC Section 61 is the Section that identifies one of the filing
                requirements, just which line of the income section does 26 CFR
                1.61-15: Options received as payment of income, apply to?

                Other published regulations in 26 CFR 602.101 for Section 1.61 regs:
                26 CFR 1.61-4
                OMB NO: 1545-0187 EXPIRATION DATE: 09/30/2004
                RESPS:407,719 HOURS:1,793,964 COSTS(000):$0
                Farm Rental Income and Expenses
                FORMS: 4835
                Complete form 4835, if the result is income, place the result on
                line 40 of Schedule E, then place the result from that form on
                line 17 of Form 1040 or line 18 of Form 1040NR.

                26 CFR 1.61-2 and 1.61-2T
                OMB NO: 1545-0771 EXPIRATION DATE: 08/31/2003
                RESPS:44,905,150 HOURS:37,922,688 COSTS(000):$0
                EE-63-88 (Final and temporary regulations) Taxation of Fringe
                Benefits and Exclusions From Gross Income for Certain Fringe
                Benefits; IA-140-86 (Temporary) Fringe Benefits; Listed Property
                FORMS: NONE

                I correlated this information to willful failure to file provisions.
                One thing you will note is that ALL of these provisions specifies
                partnerships, trust, interest in foreign corporations, small business
                corporations, etc. None of them state anything about an individual
                being subject to willful failure to file on "wages". I am in the process
                of getting the Federal Register publications on these now.
                I have identified several, however, I don't know if these are all
                of them. Some do specify specific regulations that are authorized
                for the 1040 form:

                Sect 1.6031(a)-1 return of partnership income

                Sect 1.6033-2 Returns by exempt organizations

                Sec. 1.6034-1 Information returns required of trusts described in section
                4947(a)(2) or claiming charitable or other deductions under section 642(c).

                Sec. 1.6035-1 Returns of U.S. officers, directors and 10-percent
                shareholders
                of foreign personal holding companies for taxable years beginning after
                September 3, 1982.

                Sect 1.6037-1 Return of electing small business corporation.

                Sect 1.6038-1 Information returns required of domestic corporations with
                respect to annual accounting periods of certain foreign corporations
                beginning before January 1, 1963.

                Sect 1.6038-2 Information returns required of United States persons with
                respect to annual accounting periods of certain foreign corporations
                beginning after December 31, 1962.

                Sect 1.6038-2T Information returns required of United States persons
                with respect to annual accounting periods of certain foreign corporations
                (temporary).

                Sect 1.6041-5 Information as to actual owner.

                Sect 1.6043-4 Information returns relating to certain acquisitions of
                control
                and changes in capital structure.

                Sect 1.6045-4 Information reporting on real estate transactions
                with dates of closing on or after January 1, 1991.

                Sect 1.6045-5 Information reporting on payments to attorneys.

                Sect 1.6046A-1 Return requirement for United States persons
                who acquire or dispose of an interest in a foreign partnership,
                or whose proportional interest in a foreign partnership changes
                substantially.

                Sect 1.1461-3 Withholding under section 1446.

                Sect 1.852-9 Special procedural requirements applicable
                to designation under section 852(b)(3)(D).

                So the real question is - which section identifies you as a taxpayer that
                is subject to penalties for failing to file (all under Section 1 of the
                IRS code)?
                This was because you failed to use that which was taken from your
                "wages" by
                your employer (taken under Section 24) and use it as credit
                against your Section 1 responsibilities per 26 USC Section 31, 26 CFR
                1.31-2 (a 1040 authorized regulation)??


                Carole wrote:
                >
                >
                > Though I agree with your take on how Springer handled his case, you state
                > below, which I also agree with, however:
                > this implies that if you EVER signed a tax form you are agreeing to be a
                > taxpayer. You leave no way out for the average person. There has to be a
                > way to extricate yourself once you had signed your first tax form maybe as
                > young as 13 years old. Carole
                >
                > > Of course, this does not apply if one has signed a
                > > tax form agreeing to be a taxpayer. You have then
                > > provided your own evidence, and asking the IRS to
                > > prove is silly.
                > > mn
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.