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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Past IRS Taxes Penalties/Fees

Expand Messages
  • Bob Conlon
    Exactly.  Congressional mandate is established.   Doesn t matter how many times something appears in a law.  ONce will do it.  PLease explain how a
    Message 1 of 20 , Aug 14, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Exactly.  Congressional mandate is established.   Doesn't matter how many times something appears in a law.  ONce will do it.  PLease explain how a treasury order destroys public law?  No can do.
       
      Secretary screwed up.   Have you downloaded the document and read it?   It gets much worse for the IRS and the executive branch.   Americans are being defrauded. 
       
      The law says the district director MUST authorize in writing levies.  This is codified in Title 26 sec. 6334.   District director is also required by hundreds of CFR regulations.  Big time fraud going on here being committed by IRS, or what used to be IRS.  In fact, everytime a 1040 is filed, a crime is being committed.   REad the doc, you'll see.

      --- On Sun, 8/14/11, Jake <jake_28079@...> wrote:

      From: Jake <jake_28079@...>
      Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Past IRS Taxes Penalties/Fees
      To: "tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com" <tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com>
      Date: Sunday, August 14, 2011, 6:07 AM

       
           > RRA98 at section 3445 established the fact that congress mandated that the position of district director be maintained! 

      Sec. 3445 is Procedures for seizure of residences and businesses:

      http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.2676.ENR:

      "District director" only appears once in section 3445:

      (b) LEVY ALLOWED IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES - Section 6334(e) is amended to read as follows:

        `(e) LEVY ALLOWED ON PRINCIPAL RESIDENCES AND CERTAIN BUSINESS ASSETS IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES-

            `(1) PRINCIPAL RESIDENCES-
                `(A) APPROVAL REQUIRED- A principal residence shall not be exempt from levy if a judge or magistrate of a district court of the United States approves (in writing) the levy of such residence.  
                `(B) JURISDICTION- The district courts of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction to approve a levy under subparagraph (A).

            `(2) CERTAIN BUSINESS ASSETS- Property (other than a principal residence) described in subsection (a)(13)(B) shall not be exempt from levy if--
                `(A) a district director or assistant district director of the Internal Revenue Service personally approves (in writing) the levy of such property; or
       
      ~ ~ ~
    • Bob Conlon
      I would file a civil complaint against the 3rd party for conversion if property has been levied, since they have a fiduciary duty to make sure the law is
      Message 2 of 20 , Aug 14, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        I would file a civil complaint against the 3rd party for 'conversion' if property has been levied, since they have a fiduciary duty to make sure the law is being obeyed.  Law says the district director must determine if property should be siezed since the district director is the highest officer in an internal revenue district.  See 26 CFR 601.101

        --- On Sat, 8/13/11, BeatIRS@... <BeatIRS@...> wrote:

        From: BeatIRS@... <BeatIRS@...>
        Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Past IRS Taxes Penalties/Fees
        To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Saturday, August 13, 2011, 9:02 AM

         
        She needs to file a seventh amendment to the Bill of Rights and Rule 38 demand for a common law jury trial to hear and rule on the validity of the IRS's claims. After a judge is assigned, she should give that judge notice that he has a conflict of interest because he is paid by and receives benefits from government (a government agent) and is, therefore, unable to be impartial in any controversy between the government and a citizen.

        In a message dated 8/12/2011 11:27:35 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
        sandman28036@... writes:

        I am post this for someone because after hearing her story, It did not seem
        fair..

        Synopsis- A married woman that filed seperately from her now ex husband on
        her taxes in 2008..

      • ciamarie2001
        ... Actually, interest is a certain rate determined periodically and published in the Federal Register under Notices, as the amounts that are charged for under
        Message 3 of 20 , Aug 14, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "optionqueen2002" <acctone@...> wrote:
          >
          > Interest and penalties have 2 different rates of interest. Interest rates on taxes are tied into the current bank interest rates. Interest rates on penalties is much higher, usually in the 30-50% range.
          >

          Actually, interest is a certain rate determined periodically and published in the Federal Register under Notices, as the amounts that are charged for under payments of Customs duties. Granted, I haven't looked it up since 2004, but I have recently been the recipient of an IRS 'audit' wherein they tacked on penalties for 'failure to pay' etc. and charge interest. The rates of interest were in a table similar to what I saw back when I did an online search of the Federal Register back then, and only found them in relation to Customs duties.

          For example, from the back of the 2nd page of a CP503 it has a heading Interest charges, and shows the total interest and then says 'The table below shows the rates used to calculate the interest'... This table is from a notice sent in Feb. of this year, and the interest rate from Jan. 1 2009 to Mar 31 2009 was 5%. Then since the beginning of April 2009 it's been at 4%. Prior rates back to about 2006 were in the range of 7-8%.

          Of course, they'll tack on additional 'failure to pay' or 'late payment' penalties when ever they send a notice and then charge additional interest on those amounts I believe. But there are not different amounts for taxes and penalties and they don't approach the 30-50% range. They may be running an extortion racket, but at least they have a veneer of legality.
        • quarefremeruntgentes7@yahoo.com
          Would you call this an illegal effort to transform the agency into something more like a limited liability corporation? Jeff Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
          Message 4 of 20 , Aug 14, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Would you call this an illegal effort to transform the agency into something more like a "limited liability corporation?"

            Jeff
            Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

            Wrong!

            RRA98 at section 3445 established the fact that congress mandated that the position of district director be maintained!
          • Jake
                  Exactly.  Congressional mandate is established.   Doesn t matter how many times something appears in a law.  ONce will do it.  PLease explain how
            Message 5 of 20 , Aug 14, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
                   > Exactly.  Congressional mandate is established.   Doesn't matter how many times something appears in a law.  ONce will do it.  PLease explain how a treasury order destroys public law?  

              What are you talking about?  I didn't say anything about a T.O. 

                   > District director is also required by hundreds of CFR regulations.  

              No regulation can create an office which a statute eliminated.  100's of Regs. still refer to "district director" because they haven't been changed yet, but many have been, removing the term.  In addition, RRA's alteration to § 6334 was made before the implementation of RRA 98 & before the office of district director was eliminated (revenue districts too).  The fact that CONgress hasn't changed § 6334 since the implementation is their fault - however, look @  § 6334 (e)(2) & notice the word "or":

              (e) Levy allowed on principal residences and certain business assets in certain circumstances

                   (2) Certain business assets
                   Property (other than a principal residence) described in subsection (a)(13)(B) shall not be exempt from levy if— 
                      (A) a district director or assistant district director of the Internal Revenue Service personally approves (in writing) the levy of such property;
              or 
                      (B) the Secretary finds that the collection of tax is in jeopardy.

              Consequently, a levy on "certain business assets" is NOT limited to the approval of a (non-existent) district director & all the IRS would have to do is say is they have to levy because collection is in "jeopardy", using B instead of A. 

              Regarding the fact that there are no district directors anymore, I'll do a "copy & paste" from one of the cases I'm working on:

              RRA 98, section 1001, provides in part that:

                 The Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall develop and implement a plan to reorganize the Internal Revenue Service. The plan shall —
                   (1) supersede any organization or reorganization of the Internal Revenue Service based on any statute or reorganization plan applicable on the effective date of this section;
                   (2)
              eliminate or substantially modify the existing organization of the Internal Revenue Service which is based on a national, regional, and district structure; (Emphasis added).

                      a. The United States Department of Justice stated on 29 May 2009 that, “The IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 abolished internal revenue districts as of October 1, 2000 . . ."  See Testimony of David C. Williams, Inspector General, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, dated May 8, 2001, Implementation of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Joint Hearing Before Committees of the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives.” (Emphasis added). The Testimony mentioned contains the following statement:

                      "As stated previously, on October 1, 2000, the IRS achieved a significant milestone toward modernization by putting into effect (or standing up) a new organizational structure. The four major components of the new IRS are the Wage and Investment (W&I) Division, the Small Business/Self-Employed (SB/SE) Division, the Large and Mid-Size Business (LMSB) Division and the Tax Exempt and Government Entities (TE/GE) Division."  (Emphasis added).
              ____________

              The organization of the IRS which was "based on a national, regional, and district structure" DOES NOT EXIST anymore & it hasn't for over 10 years.  And just because the secretary of the treasury is "slower than a 7-year itch" updating regulations does NOT mean that the old nat'l. / regional / district structure still exists.  If you want to believe it does that's your prerogative, but you're 10 years behind the MAJOR structural change to 4 divisions which which are not geographical: [1] Wage and Investment, [2] Small Business/Self-Employed, [3] Large and Mid-Size Business, [4] Tax Exempt and Government Entities.

              Also, the government's contention that the IRS could continue with "business as usual" during the reorganization process by re-delegating functions which were performed by offices that don't exist anymore is just now getting to the court of appeals level.  Of course, it's incumbent on the courts to not disrupt the IRS' ability to collect, no matter how they have to "weasel word" their decisions, but from a technical legal standpoint, there are some serious problems, e.g., 26 CFR § 301.6203-1 requires that an assessment certificate be signed by the "assessment officer", which was chosen by the district director, but neither of those offices exist anymore, so the IRS can't produce a valid assessment certificate.  I've never seen one which met the requirements of the regulation to begin with, but now the person who is to sign it doesn't exist & neither does the person who would assign that job.

              However, I don't like to waste my time with arguments over legal theory - all I care about is what works, what doesn't & why.

              ~ ~ ~
            • Jake
                    Law says the district director must determine if property should be siezed since the district director is the highest officer in an internal revenue
              Message 6 of 20 , Aug 14, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                     > Law says the district director must determine if property should be siezed since the district director is the highest officer in an internal revenue district.  See 26 CFR 601.101  

                A classic example of a regulation which has not been updated to reflect the changes RRA 98 made.  Here's the date notation @ the end of § 601.101 (current as of 11 August 2011 & 26 CFR is updated on 1 April each year)):

                [38 FR 4955, Feb. 23, 1973 and 41 FR 20880, May 21, 1976, as amended at 45 FR 7251, Feb. 1, 1980; 49 FR 36498, Sept. 18, 1984; T.D. 8685, 61 FR 58008, Nov. 12, 1996]

                Last change / update in 1996.  And see United States v. Mersky, 361 U.S. 431, 437, 438 (1960):

                   An administrative regulation, of course, is not a "statute."  While, in practical effect, regulations may be called "little laws," they are, at most, but offspring of statutes.  * * *  Once promulgated, these regulations, called for by the statute itself, have the force of law, . . . The result is that neither the statute nor the regulations are complete without the other, and only together do they have any force.  (Emphasis added).

                A regulation cannot stand on its own & neither can a statute, if it calls for an implementing regulation(s) (not all statutes have or need implementing regulations).  So when you've got a change in the underlying statute(s) & the relevant regulation(s) hasn't been updated to reflect the statutory change, the regulation is virtually meaningless.  And in this case, the reference in § 601.101 to "district director", an office which no longer exists, is irrelevant since the regulation was last updated in 1996 & a major statutory change occurred 2 years later.

                However, the secretary's failure to update regulations to reflect statutory changes gives you ammunition to use when you run into conflicts between statute & regulation - conflicts which I rarely see anyone attack.

                ~ ~ ~
              • sandman28036
                Again... I appreciate all the responses, and I ve sent those to whom is dealing with this.. As I understand more I will post more, but I m just one person
                Message 7 of 20 , Aug 14, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  Again... I appreciate all the responses, and I've sent those to whom is dealing with this.. As I understand more I will post more, but I'm just one person trying to do the right thing and what ever I can to help another in need, and not have any motive or want anything in return...
                   
                  Thanks again to all that are posting to this question, I will try and get any updates and will continue to post to keep those here informed of the outcome or changes etc..
                   
                  ~A
                • BOB GREGORY
                  *Hey, Bob C., Wrong! Wrong! Section 3445 relates to IRS procedures for seizure of residences and businesses. There is one mention in Section 3445 of
                  Message 8 of 20 , Aug 14, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hey, Bob C.,

                    Wrong!  Wrong!  Section 3445 relates to IRS procedures for seizure of residences and businesses.  There is one mention in Section 3445 of district directors.  This is it:


                    (2) CERTAIN BUSINESS ASSETS.—Property (other than a
                    principal residence) described in subsection (a)(13)(B) shall not
                    be exempt from levy if—
                    ‘‘(A) a district director or assistant district director
                    of the Internal Revenue Service personally approves (in
                    writing) the levy of such property; or
                    ‘‘(B) the Secretary finds that the collection of tax is
                    in jeopardy.

                    On the other hand, Section 1001 of the Act says this:

                    SEC. 1001. REORGANIZATION OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE.
                    (a) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall
                    develop and implement a plan to reorganize the Internal Revenue
                    Service. The plan shall—
                    (1) supersede any organization or reorganization of the
                    Internal Revenue Service based on any statute or reorganiza-
                    tion plan applicable on the effective date of this section;
                    (2) eliminate or substantially modify the existing organiza-
                    tion of the Internal Revenue Service which is based on a
                    national, regional, and district structure;

                    (3) establish organizational units serving particular groups
                    of taxpayers with similar needs; and
                    (4) ensure an independent appeals function within the
                    Internal Revenue Service, including the prohibition in the plan
                    of ex parte communications between appeals officers and other
                    Internal Revenue Service employees to the extent that such
                    communications appear to compromise the independence of the
                    appeals officers.



                    So, the law tells the IRS to do away with the district/region type of organization and go to a system with units serving certain categories of "taxpayers."  Then, later in the act, it says that only district directors and assistant district directors (or the Secretary in certain jeaopard cases) may approve certain types of levies.

                    In any case, the RRA98 law tells the IRS to do away with districts and, by implication, district directors.  So Jake is correct.

                    Anyone who wishes to read the RRA98 law may download a .pdf cop[y here:  PDF  (792 KB)

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





                    On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 5:26 AM, Bob Conlon <bobc3591@...> wrote:
                     

                    Wrong!  
                     
                    RRA98 at section 3445 established the fact that congress mandated that the position of district director be maintained!  
                     
                    This is the whole point!  The IRS (read, sec of treas) screwed up.  The complete opposite is true! 
                     
                    The district director position must exist by law and the IRS eliminated it.   The IRS has a big problem on its hands!
                     
                    This cannot stand.  Sooner or later this will hit the courts.
                    --- On Sat, 8/13/11, Jake <jake_28079@...> wrote:

                    From: Jake <jake_28079@...>
                    Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Past IRS Taxes Penalties/Fees
                    To: "tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com" <tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com>
                    Date: Saturday, August 13, 2011, 3:54 PM

                     
                       >  I would demand to know who the district director is . . .

                    Due to implementation of the IRS Restructuring & Reform Act, the office of district director was eliminated.  As of October 2001, there are no more district directors.

                    ~ ~ ~

                  • BOB GREGORY
                    *Bob C.: Earlier you wrote: The district director position must exist by law and the IRS eliminated it. Now you say the district director must be involved.
                    Message 9 of 20 , Aug 14, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Bob C.:

                      Earlier you wrote:  " The district director position must exist by law and the IRS eliminated it." Now you say the district director must be involved.  You say "Law says," but then you cite 26 CFR 601.101 wiich is an administrative (non substantive) regulation with no force or effect of law.

                      There have been no districts or district directors for over TEN YEARS.

                      None of this makes much difference to the IRS because it operates illegally under COLOR of law.  Its own counsel, the Department of Justice, the federal courts and the Tax Court cooperate. 


                      On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Bob Conlon <bobc3591@...> wrote:
                       

                      I would file a civil complaint against the 3rd party for 'conversion' if property has been levied, since they have a fiduciary duty to make sure the law is being obeyed.  Law says the district director must determine if property should be siezed since the district director is the highest officer in an internal revenue district.  See 26 CFR 601.101

                      --- On Sat, 8/13/11, BeatIRS@... <BeatIRS@...> wrote:

                      From: BeatIRS@... <BeatIRS@...>
                      Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Past IRS Taxes Penalties/Fees
                      To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                      Date: Saturday, August 13, 2011, 9:02 AM

                       
                      She needs to file a seventh amendment to the Bill of Rights and Rule 38 demand for a common law jury trial to hear and rule on the validity of the IRS's claims. After a judge is assigned, she should give that judge notice that he has a conflict of interest because he is paid by and receives benefits from government (a government agent) and is, therefore, unable to be impartial in any controversy between the government and a citizen.

                      In a message dated 8/12/2011 11:27:35 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                      sandman28036@... writes:

                      I am post this for someone because after hearing her story, It did not seem
                      fair..

                      Synopsis- A married woman that filed seperately from her now ex husband on
                      her taxes in 2008..


                    • marcusgarvey2009
                      I believe the IRS may have an out card on this argument. This is the first time this Court has addressed in a published Opinion the question of whether the
                      Message 10 of 20 , Aug 15, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I believe the IRS may have an out card on this argument.

                        "This is the first time this Court has addressed in a published Opinion the question of whether the absence of a district director causes an assessment to be invalid. (A Federal District Court has rejected the district director argument. United States v. Booth, 106 AFTR 2d 2010-6409, 2010-2 USTC par. 50,626 (E.D. Cal. 2010). We are not, however, bound by the decision of the District Court for the Eastern District of California.)
                        ...

                        The IRS has been reorganized several times in recent history. The district director position and responsibilities
                        were assigned to others after the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (RRA), Pub. L. 105-206, 112 Stat. 685, required the Commissioner to eliminate or substantially modify the IRS' national, regional and district structure. Id. sec. 1001, 112 Stat. 689. To ensure continuity of operations, the RRA specifically included a savings provision. Id. sec. 1001(b). The savings provision applies to keep in effect regulations that refer to officers whose positions no longer exist. Id. It also provides that nothing in the
                        reorganization plan would be considered to impair any right or remedy to recover any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority. Id.

                        Furthermore, IRS Deleg. Order 1-23 (formerly IRS Deleg. Order 193, Rev. 6), Internal Revenue Manual pt. 1.2.40.22 (Nov. 8, 2000) allows directors, submission processing field, compliance services field and accounts management field to appoint assessment officers. This order further implemented Congress' intent that the IRS' normal duties, including that of assessment, not be obstructed by the reorganization. (See H. Conf. Rept. 105-599 at 194 (1998), 1998-3 C.B. 747, 948 ("The IRS Commissioner is directed to restructure the IRS by eliminating or substantially modifying the present-law three-tier geographic structure and replacing it with an organizational structure that features operating units serving particular groups of taxpayers with similar needs. * * * The legality of IRS actions will not be affected pending further appropriate statutory changes relating to such a reorganization (e.g.,eliminating statutory references to obsolete positions).")." Grunsted v. C.I.R., 136 T.C. 21 (2001).

                        Yes, I know Tax Court decisions are not binding, but its important to read their reasoning and decide for yourself does it hold water.  Now, lets read the district court case.

                        "The IRS RRA eliminated District Directors. IRS Delegation Order 193 (Rev. 6) (11/08/2000) allows Directors,
                        Compliance Services Field to appoint assessment officers. An important caveat in the IRS RRA
                        was that ...

                        All orders, determinations, rules, regulations, permits, agreements, grants, contracts,
                        certificates, licenses, registrations, privileges, and other administrative actions. - (A)
                        which have been issued, made, granted, or allowed to become effective by the President,
                        any Federal agency or official thereof, or by a court of competent jurisdiction, in the
                        performance of any function transferred or affected by the reorganization of the Internal
                        Revenue Service or any other administrative unit of the Department of the Treasury under
                        this section; and (B) which are in effect at the time this section takes effect, or were final
                        before the effective date of this section and are to become effective on or after the
                        effective date of this section, shall continue in effect according to their terms until
                        modified, terminated, superseded, set aside, or revoked in accordance with law by the
                        President, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, or other
                        authorized official, a court of competent jurisdiction, or by operation of law. IRS RRA, 105 Public Law 206, §1001(b) (enacted Jul. 22, 1998).

                        It is clear that Congress did not intend to obstruct the functioning of the IRS in its normal duties, including that of assessment
                        ." U.S. v. Booth (E.D. Cal. 2010 1:09-cv-01689-AWI).

                        So, the regulations are fine, Congress gave them the out card right there in the Code.  Now, even though the clause does explicitly cover things mentioned in a statute, I believe the court would say you are going to have to prove that Congress DID intend to obstruct the functioning of the IRS in its normal duties with the RRA and point back to H. Conf. Rept. 105-599 at 194 (1998), 1998-3 C.B. 747, 948. That's a hard sell.  In other words the court is saying "if the IRS could do it before the RRA and they can do it after the RRA ."

                        I have heard of another adverse decision, U.S. v.ZDunn, 107 AFTR 2d 2011-891 (D. OR 2011), although I have not personally read it. If someone can find it, I'd appreciate a copy.

                        I think the better argument is as follows...

                        (1) Internal revenue districts created under 26 USC 7621 are required for "district directors" to have any authority within state of the Union.
                        (2) Read the notes following 26 USC 7621 and it will tell you Executive Order #10289 implements internal revenue districts.
                        (3) There used to be (but no longer) an entry in the "Parallel Table of Authority and Rules" for E.O. #10289 which said...
                        "E.O. 10289 ............................................19 Part 101."
                        (4) 19 CFR Part 101 says ...
                        "This part sets forth general regulations governing the authority of Customs officers, and the location of Customs ports of entry, service ports and Customs stations. It further sets forth regulations concerning the entry and clearance of vessels at Customs stations and a listing of Customs preclearance offices in foreign countries. In addition, this part contains provisions concerning the hours of business of Customs offices, the Customs seal, and the identification cards issued to Customs officers and employees."

                        Question...

                        Where did the Secretary ever post public notice that he was using Executive Order #10289 to create internal revenue districts relating to anything that was not a Customs officer, or the location of Customs ports of entry, service ports or of Customs stations?


                        --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Bob Conlon <bobc3591@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Exactly.  Congressional mandate is established.   Doesn't matter how many times something appears in a law.  ONce will do it.  PLease explain how a treasury order destroys public law?  No can do.
                        >  
                        > Secretary screwed up.   Have you downloaded the document and read it?   It gets much worse for the IRS and the executive branch.   Americans are being defrauded. 
                        >  
                        > The law says the district director MUST authorize in writing levies.  This is codified in Title 26 sec. 6334.   District director is also required by hundreds of CFR regulations.  Big time fraud going on here being committed by IRS, or what used to be IRS.  In fact, everytime a 1040 is filed, a crime is being committed.   REad the doc, you'll see.
                        >
                        > --- On Sun, 8/14/11, Jake jake_28079@... wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        > From: Jake jake_28079@...
                        > Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Past IRS Taxes Penalties/Fees
                        > To: "tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com" tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                        > Date: Sunday, August 14, 2011, 6:07 AM
                        >
                        >
                        >  
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >      > RRA98 at section 3445 established the fact that congress mandated that the position of district director be maintained! 
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Sec. 3445 is Procedures for seizure of residences and businesses:
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.2676.ENR:
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > "District director" only appears once in section 3445:
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > (b) LEVY ALLOWED IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES - Section 6334(e) is amended to read as follows:
                        >
                        >   `(e) LEVY ALLOWED ON PRINCIPAL RESIDENCES AND CERTAIN BUSINESS ASSETS IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES-
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >       `(1) PRINCIPAL RESIDENCES-
                        >           `(A) APPROVAL REQUIRED- A principal residence shall not be exempt from levy if a judge or magistrate of a district court of the United States approves (in writing) the levy of such residence.  
                        >           `(B) JURISDICTION- The district courts of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction to approve a levy under subparagraph (A).
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >       `(2) CERTAIN BUSINESS ASSETS- Property (other than a principal residence) described in subsection (a)(13)(B) shall not be exempt from levy if--
                        >           `(A) a district director or assistant district director of the Internal Revenue Service personally approves (in writing) the levy of such property; or
                        >
                        >  
                        > ~ ~ ~
                        >
                      • Cliff Bass
                        The IRS has no out card. If there is a regulation that is required by Statute it must be published in the Federal Register. For example 26 USC 6203 requires
                        Message 11 of 20 , Aug 17, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                          The IRS has no out card. If there is a regulation that is required by Statute
                          it must be published in the Federal Register.

                          For example 26 USC 6203 requires a regulation. That is shown in 68A Stat. 768.


                          And if there was a substantive regulation for that statute it must be made in
                          accordance to the 1935 Federal Register Act and the 1946 APA.

                          The 1935 Federal Register Act created the Administrative Committee of the
                          Federal Register.


                          The ACFR requires publication in the Federal Register substantive regulations to have force and effect. And the citation of authority must be published in a very specific location. That is expressly shown in 26 CFR 21.41 and 21.43.


                          The fact is, there is no valid part 1 income tax regulation with the authority
                          citation 26 U.S.C. 6203 published "at the end of the table of contents".

                          Congress gave the orders to the Secretary. And the Secretary did create a part
                          301 regulation for 6203. But the agency did not create a part 1 regulation for
                          6203.

                          And notice that the Secretary's interpretive part 301, for internal use only,
                          regulation does not fully comply with the Federal Register Act Congress mandated
                          and the president agreed with and signed. And the IRS is an executive branch
                          agency under the Treasury shown in 26 CFR 601.101

                          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.

                          ...................................


                          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.



                          (revised 2004)

                          Congress gave the Secretary orders that a copy of a specific document be given to the taxpayer upon request. But the Secretary's regulation says all he needs is a limited form of assessment.

                          Why? Because it is for internal use only.

                          Read the Judge's instructions to the jury in the Bannister's case, CASE #: Cr. S-04-435 WBS, Eastern District of California, and you will understand why he walked.

                          Case law is especially fine when based on Acts of Congress and the Secretary's
                          orders.
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.