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

Re: tax garnishment

Expand Messages
  • Roger
    28 USC §3104. Start with §3001 and as you work your way through, you will find that your pay is not subject to garnishment under the law, UNDER ANY
    Message 1 of 8 , Oct 12, 2004
      28 USC §3104. Start with §3001 and as you work your way through, you
      will find that your pay is not subject to garnishment under the law,
      UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. Now, will the courts follow the law? NO.


      --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Bob law <saveyourpay@y...>
      wrote:
      >
      > I am not sure as to how much they can take other than
      > almost all of it if one doesn't fill out their forms.
      > If one files out their forms then they must make
      > allowance for alot of your monthly expenses which is
      > found in their IRM 5300 Manual-Balance Due Account
      > Procedures- at section 5323 (4)(a)(1) through (4).
      >
      >
      >
      > > What is the law and where is it on the maximum that
      > > IRS can garnish from
      > > pay?
      >
      >
      >
      > _______________________________
      > Do you Yahoo!?
      > Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
      > http://vote.yahoo.com
    • David L. Miner
      Roger -- Pardon my injection into the discussion but there is one fact that must be made clear. The IRS does not garnish any paycheck. It LEVIES a paycheck.
      Message 2 of 8 , Oct 15, 2004
        Roger --

        Pardon my injection into the discussion but there is one fact that must be
        made clear.

        The IRS does not garnish any paycheck. It LEVIES a paycheck. This is a
        totally different issue (according to the IRS and certain courts), and one
        NOT subject to 28 USC 3104 concerning garnishment.

        Perhaps more important is the fact that the IRS doesn't truly LEVY a
        paycheck, it sends a Notice of Levy, which is only valid when the fed govt
        levies the paycheck of a federal employee. A Notice of Levy is NOT a
        levy -- two separate forms and two separate sets of procedures.

        Either way, the statutes concerning garnishing do not apply to an IRS levy.

        Just thought you might want to know.

        Yours in freedom,

        Dave Miner
        www.FreedomSite.net


        -----Original Message-----
        From: Roger [mailto:rogmich@...]
        Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 9:39 AM
        To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: tax garnishment





        28 USC §3104. Start with §3001 and as you work your way through, you
        will find that your pay is not subject to garnishment under the law,
        UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. Now, will the courts follow the law? NO.


        ---
        Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
        Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
        Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/1/2004
      • Roger
        Dave, you are incorrect about levy. 28 USC §3002 defines all things subject to the Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act. You will find tax there in §3002
        Message 3 of 8 , Oct 17, 2004
          Dave, you are incorrect about levy. 28 USC §3002 defines all things
          subject to the Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act. You will
          find "tax" there in §3002 (3)(B). Taxes are the IRS' domain last I
          checked. Furthermore, "§3102 (d) Levy of attachment" is included
          within the act. As I said before, start with §3001 and work your way
          through, to §3104.


          --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "David L. Miner"
          <dminer@f...> wrote:
          >
          > Roger --
          >
          > Pardon my injection into the discussion but there is one fact that
          must be
          > made clear.
          >
          > The IRS does not garnish any paycheck. It LEVIES a paycheck. >
          > ---
          > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
          > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
          > Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/1/2004
        • David L. Miner
          Roger -- Never heard of the IRS claiming to garnish a paycheck. And never heard of a judge calling an IRS levy to be a garnishment. On the other hand, I have
          Message 4 of 8 , Oct 17, 2004
            Roger --

            Never heard of the IRS claiming to garnish a paycheck. And never heard of a
            judge calling an IRS levy to be a garnishment. On the other hand, I have
            reviewed many court cases where the IRS claims the levy is different from a
            garnishment, and where judges agree with the IRS.

            I am not saying that you are wrong in your view of the laws, especially of
            the stated sections. I am only saying that the IRS disagrees with you and
            normally gets the judge to agree with its views and not with your views.
            One of the reasons why the IRS gets away with its claims and its activities
            is the fact that the Internal Revenue Code never mentions garnishment, and
            it specifically describes levy.

            Please understand that the IRS violates the tax laws every day. So it is no
            stretch to imagine the IRS breaks the garnishment statutes. I am only
            saying that the IRS is generally effective at exempting itself and its
            actions from the garnishment statutes.

            Another reason the IRS is usually successful in avoiding the garnishment
            laws is because the FDCPA does not always differentiate between federal
            taxes in general and federal income taxes in particular. The IRS claims the
            restrictions of the FDCPA relate to federal taxes in a general sense.
            Federal taxes in a general sense have nothing to do with federal income
            taxes in a specific sense. The ONLY federal taxes that involve the IRS are
            specifically listed in the Internal Revenue Code. All other federal taxes
            have nothing to do with the IRS. So the IRS takes the position, aided by
            many federal judges, that the FDCPA does not apply to the IRS except in
            certain limited situations. This allows the IRS to proclaim the FDCPA
            limitations on garnishments do not apply to the IRC levies issues and
            collected by the IRS.

            What we need to do is effectively challenge the contention by the IRS that
            an IRS levy is not a garnishment. SO far, I have not seen that effective
            challenge.

            Yours in freedom,

            Dave Miner
            www.FreedomSite.net




            -----Original Message-----
            From: Roger [mailto:rogmich@...]
            Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 11:39 AM
            To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: tax garnishment





            Dave, you are incorrect about levy. 28 USC §3002 defines all things
            subject to the Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act. You will
            find "tax" there in §3002 (3)(B). Taxes are the IRS' domain last I
            checked. Furthermore, "§3102 (d) Levy of attachment" is included
            within the act. As I said before, start with §3001 and work your way
            through, to §3104.

            ---
            Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
            Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
            Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/1/2004
          • nickster97@yahoo.com
            Dave, In some respects you are correct, and some you are incorrect. A levy is a Levy and not a garnshment. Can the IRS Levy on property it already owns? On
            Message 5 of 8 , Oct 18, 2004
              Dave,

              In some respects you are correct, and some you are incorrect. A levy
              is a Levy and not a garnshment. Can the IRS Levy on property it
              already owns? On Federal Land and Government Employees? You bet!

              What about those that are not of that jurisdiction? No they can't. So,
              how does the IRS get away with it? IT is called the presumption. Look
              at every tax case that you can. What is the presumption?

              The presumption is that you are a US PERSON residing within one of the
              50 states, IF you are not in that jurisidiction. The trick, is
              REBUTTING that presumption.



              --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "David L. Miner" <dminer@f...>
              wrote:
              >
              > What we need to do is effectively challenge the contention by the
              IRS that
              > an IRS levy is not a garnishment. SO far, I have not seen that
              effective
              > challenge.
              >
              > Yours in freedom,
              >
              > Dave Miner
              > www.FreedomSite.net
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: Roger [mailto:rogmich@d...]
              > Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 11:39 AM
              > To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: tax garnishment
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Dave, you are incorrect about levy. 28 USC §3002 defines all things
              > subject to the Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act. You will
              > find "tax" there in §3002 (3)(B). Taxes are the IRS' domain last I
              > checked. Furthermore, "§3102 (d) Levy of attachment" is included
              > within the act. As I said before, start with §3001 and work your way
              > through, to §3104.
              >
              > ---
              > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
              > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
              > Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/1/2004
            • David L. Miner
              Nick -- Actually, I am correct in everything I said. But the conclusions or assumptions you or others draw from my comments are probably NOT correct. You are
              Message 6 of 8 , Oct 19, 2004
                Nick --

                Actually, I am correct in everything I said. But the conclusions or
                assumptions you or others draw from my comments are probably NOT correct.

                You are correct in that the IRS operates almost exclusively on presumption.
                This was my point.

                But you cannot combat an IRS levy by asserting that it is not following the
                laws concerning garnishment. Nor can you combat the IRS by asserting that
                you are not a 14th Amendment US citizen. Nor can you combat the IRS by
                asserting you are not within its jurisdiction. There are many accurate
                claims available, but they will not stop the IRS.

                I have been fighting the IRS effectively for almost 15 years, both for me
                and for a couple thousand clients. The ONLY means I have found to
                effectively fight the IRS is to get (force!) it to change the PRESUMPTIONS
                in your Individual Master File. The IRS is pursuing someone for returns or
                for taxes ONLY because their IMF lists them as a taxpayer, as a business, as
                one who is using another's SSN, etc. Or a combination of the above. Or ALL
                the above.

                You can assert all sorts of arguments when corresponding with the IRS, but
                you will still lose. Once you have forced the IRS to change your IMF to
                reflect ONLY facts, then the IRS will leave you alone.

                I have not seen the other arguments or positions or "facts" stop the IRS
                except temporarily.

                The really sad part is the fact that few judges will hold the IRS
                accountable to the laws. Possibly because very few judges understand the
                laws, and possibly because a few judges are crooked, and possibly because of
                any number of other reasons. But almost no one will be successful in
                challenging the IRS through letters making claims or stating beliefs or even
                quoting the laws. The IRS will ignore the letters and follow the
                presumptions in the IMF.

                If there is a "silver bullet" to use against the IRS, it lies within the
                IMF. It does not lie within the laws. These are excellent supporting
                arguments when facing a judge, but they will not stop the IRS.

                Yours in freedom,

                Dave Miner
                www.FreedomSite.net



                -----Original Message-----
                From: nickster97@... [mailto:nickster97@...]
                Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 2:33 AM
                To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: tax garnishment


                Dave,

                In some respects you are correct, and some you are incorrect. A levy
                is a Levy and not a garnshment. Can the IRS Levy on property it
                already owns? On Federal Land and Government Employees? You bet!

                What about those that are not of that jurisdiction? No they can't. So,
                how does the IRS get away with it? IT is called the presumption. Look
                at every tax case that you can. What is the presumption?

                The presumption is that you are a US PERSON residing within one of the
                50 states, IF you are not in that jurisidiction. The trick, is
                REBUTTING that presumption.


                ---
                Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
                Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
                Version: 6.0.778 / Virus Database: 525 - Release Date: 10/15/2004
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.