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

Re: 60 day deadline of 26 U.S.C. § 6303

Expand Messages
  • Patrick McKEE
    I think people should step back & take a look at HOW they got in this situation in the FIRST PLACE. Odds are that WE either FILED an income tax RETURN and/or
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 31, 2010
    • 0 Attachment

      I think people should step back & take a look at HOW they got in this situation in the FIRST PLACE.

       

      Odds are that WE either FILED an income tax RETURN and/or REQUESTED WITHHOLDING, which is WHY the IRS “believes” that we MAY owe INCOME TAX.

       

      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 

       

      Did the IRS INITIALLY give us NOTICE that we were an INDIVIDUAL REQUIRED to either FILE a RETURN or otherwise LIABLE for INCOME TAX?

       

      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

       

      After all, WITHHOLDING is for INCOME TAX LIABILITY & is ONLY REQUIRED of specific INDIVIDUALS.

       

      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

       

       

      26 USC 7701(a)(16) Withholding agent

      The term “withholding agent” means any person required to deduct and withhold any tax under the provisions of section 1441, 1442, 1443, or 1461.

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

       

      Subtitle A—Income Taxes

       

      CHAPTER 3—WITHHOLDING OF TAX ON NONRESIDENT ALIENS AND FOREIGN CORPORATIONS

       

      •Subchapter A—Nonresident Aliens and Foreign Corporations (§§ 1441—1446)

      •Subchapter B—Application of Withholding Provisions (§§ 1451—1465)

       

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26_10_A_20_3.html

       

      And IF they did NOT give us the REQUIRED NOTICE, then we should consider the POSSIBILITY that the IRS is acting under ERRONEUS PRESUMPTIONS that WE CREATED by OWN ACTIONS in filing and/or requesting withholding, ACKNOWLEDGE our MISTAKE, give them CONSTRUCTIVE LEGAL NOTICE of the LAW & TRUE FACTS in the matter & ask that they EITHER correct their records OR PRODUCE the EVIDENCE that shows us wrong IF they DISAGREE.

       

      He who does not deny, admits.

      Where truth is, fiction of law does not exist.

      Suppression of the truth is equivalent to the expression of what is false.

      Ignorance of facts excuses, ignorance of law does not excuse.

      The multitude of those who err is no excuse for error.

      An error not resisted is approved.

      Suppression of fact, which should be disclosed, is the same in effect as willful misrepresentation.

      Remove the foundation, the structure or work fall.

      Ignorance of the Law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all a sworn officer of the law.

      Remove the cause and the effect will cease.

      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.

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

                                                                           

      After all, the IRS SHOULD be able to produce the PROOF that they have sent us the REQUIRED NOTICE, since it SHOULD have been sent via CERTIFIED MAIL, especially IF we give them NOTICE of the CONSEQUENCES of their FAILURE to do so.

                                                                                                                      

      FRAUD - 1 a  : any act, expression, omission, or concealment calculated to deceive another to his or her disadvantage, specif : a misrepresentation or concealment with reference to some fact material to a transaction that is made with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity and with the intent to deceive another and that is reasonably relied on by the other who is injured thereby, b  : the affirmative defense of having acted in response to a fraud, 2  : the crime or tort of committing fraud <convicted of securities ~> see also misrepresentation. A tort action based on fraud is also referred to as an action of deceit.

      http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/fraud.html

       

      ESTOPPEL - an estoppel preventing a person from making an assertion to another's disadvantage when the person previously had the opportunity and duty to speak but failed to do so

      http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/estoppel-by-silence.html

       

      UNCLEAN HANDS - a legal doctrine which is a defense to a complaint, which states that a party who is asking for a judgment cannot have the help of the court if he/she has done anything unethical in relation to the subject of the lawsuit. Thus, if a defendant can show the plaintiff had "unclean hands," the plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed or the plaintiff will be denied judgment. Unclean hands is a common "affirmative defense" pleaded by defendants and must be proved by the defendant. Example: Hank Hardnose sues Grace Goodenough for breach of contract for failure to pay the full amount for construction of an addition to her house. Goodenough proves that Hardnose had shown her faked estimates from subcontractors to justify his original bid to Goodenough.
      http://dictionary.law.com/definition.asp?selected=2182

       

       

      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

       

      Founder, ALLIANCE for PEACE & PROSPERITY

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alliancepeaceprosperity/

       

      "ASSUMPTION can be very COSTLY to MANY and very PROFITABLE to a FEW."--PKM

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