Re: [tips_and_tricks] HELP NEEDED!
- Please cite references - the point of this forum - I think - is to create synergy with and for each other. If you have already DONE the research, please cite the reference, so that someone else can take that reference and BUILD on it."word 'individual' is a term of art defined by Congress as a form of business enterprise" - please give a reference - when did Congress do this and in what context?"'individual' is a term can be confirmed by reading the Privacy Act"" please give some citation - help us think with the same data with which you are thinking.We wont' get anywhere talking to the IRS saying, "According to jm367@... . . ."jm367@... wrote:It is a fact which can be verified by reference to tax acts, which I have posted to teaparty list and which are in archives, that the word 'individual' is a term of art defined by Congress as a form of business enterprise.That 'individual' is a term can be confirmed by reading the Privacy Act, closely.
Laguna Niguel, CA
- Mel, et.al.,
Go and read the interrogatories to "Diversified Metal
Products v. T-Bow Trust". I do not remember the
citation off the top of my mind and haven't the time
to check into it at present. Remeber in these Article
I courts they can claim anything they want and unless
it is rebutted with superior evidence it stands as
fact. They don't have to tell you the truth. Any point
of law not raised by the parties is as though it
doesn't exist, and any rights which arise thereunder
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
--- In email@example.com, Bob law <saveyourpay@y...> wrote:
>interrogatories to "Diversified Metal
> Mel, et.al.,
> Go and read the
> Products v. T-Bow Trust".Attorney Noel Spaid was sanctioned in Tax Court for using this argument.
Edwards v CIR, T.C. Memo. 2002-169
The “Agency” Issue
Petitioner has devoted 3 pages of his 12-page reply brief to arguing that the Internal Revenue Service is not an “agency of the United States”. Presumably, petitioner intends by this argument to suggest that respondent has no authority to determine or collect petitioner’s income tax deficiencies.
In support of his argument, petitioner quotes a footnote from the Supreme Court’s opinion in Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. at 297 n.23 (1979), a single page of an answer to a complaint allegedly filed by the United States in an Idaho District Court case entitled Diversified Metal Prods., Inc. v. T-Bow Co. Trust, 78 AFTR 2d 5830, 96-2 USTC par. 50,437 (D. Idaho 1996), citing at note 3 Blackmar v. Guerre, 342 U.S. 512, 514 (1952).
Petitioner’s argument is tax protester gibberish. It’s bad enough when ignorant and gullible or disingenuous taxpayers utter tax protester gibberish. It’s much more disturbing when a member of the bar offers tax protester gibberish as a substitute for legal argument.
The Internal Revenue Service is an agency of the United States Department of the Treasury. Secs. 7801(a), 7803. Section 7801 provides that “the administration and enforcement of this title shall be performed by or under the supervision of the Secretary of the Treasury.” Section 7803(a) provides for the appointment of a Commissioner of Internal Revenue under the Department of the Treasury. Section 7803(a)(2) provides that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall, among other things, “administer, manage, conduct, direct, and supervise the execution and application of the internal revenue laws or related statutes and tax conventions to which the United States is a party”. Section 7804(a) authorizes the Commissioner to employ, supervise, and direct subordinate persons to administer and enforce the internal revenue laws. These sections of the Internal Revenue Code dispel any notion that the Internal Revenue Service is not authorized to administer and enforce the internal revenue laws.
The Supreme Court recognized in Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517, 534 (1971), that “the Internal Revenue Service is organized to carry out the broad responsibilities of the Secretary of the Treasury under section 7801(a) of the 1954 Code for the administration and enforcement of the internal revenue laws.” Courts have repeatedly rejected as frivolous the argument, advanced by petitioner in the case at hand, that the Internal Revenue Service is not a governmental agency. In Young v. IRS, 596 F. Supp. 141, 147 (N.D. Ind. 1984), the court stated:
it is clear that the Secretary of the Treasury has full authority to administer and enforce the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. §7801, and has the power to create an agency to administer and enforce the laws. See 26 U.S.C. §7803(a). Pursuant to this legislative grant of authority, the Secretary of the Treasury created the IRS. 26 C.F.R. §601.101. The end result is that the IRS is a creature of “positive law” because it was created through congressionally mandated power. By plaintiff's own “positive law” premise, then, the IRS is a validly created governmental agency and not a “private corporation.” * * *
In Salman v. Dept. of Treasury, 899 F. Supp. 471, 472 (D. Nev. 1995), the court stated: “The court finds there is no basis in fact for Salman's contention that the IRS is not a government agency of the United States. * * * In short, Salman's action is wholly frivolous, and this court must dismiss it with prejudice.” In Kay v. Summers, 86 AFTR 2d 7161, 7165, 2001-1 USTC par. 50,103, at 87,013 (D. Nev. 2000), the court held the plaintiff’s contention “that the Internal Revenue Service is some sort of private corporation, not a government agency” to be frivolous. See also United States v. Fern, 696 F.2d 1269, 1273 (11th Cir. 1983) (“Clearly, the Internal Revenue Service is a ‘department or agency’ of the United States.”); Thomson v. United States, 88 AFTR 2d 5620, 5621, 2001-2 USTC par. 50,614, at 89,521 (S.D. Fla. 2001) (“The Internal Revenue Service is a ‘department or agency’ of the United States.”).
In Malone v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-372, we imposed sanctions totaling $15,000 against the taxpayers for advancing frivolous arguments, including the argument that the Internal Revenue Service is not an agency of the United States: “Contrary to petitioners’ argument, there is, in fact and in law, an IRS.” In Brandt v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-411, we imposed section 6673 sanctions of $5,000 for meritless arguments disputing the Internal Revenue Service’s authority. Petitioner cited none of these authorities to the Court.
Furthermore, the authorities petitioner cited do not support his argument. The issue in Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979), was whether Chrysler could maintain an action to enjoin the Secretary of Labor from making public reports that Chrysler, as a Government contractor, was required to file to show compliance with Federal affirmative action guidelines. One of the issues considered by the Court was whether disclosure was prohibited by the Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. sec. 1905. The Court noted that the origins of the modern Trade Secrets Act could be traced to an 1864 act barring Government revenue officers from making unauthorized disclosure of a taxpayer’s business information. The Court noted that the 1864 Act was repealed in 1948. In a footnote, the Court made a historical reference to the difference between the manner in which revenue officers operated in the 19th century and the way they operate today:
There was virtually no Washington bureaucracy created by the Act of July 1, 1862, ch. 119, 12 Stat. 432, the statute to which the present Internal Revenue Service can be traced. Researchers report that during the Civil War 85 percent of the operations of the Bureau of Internal Revenue were carried out in the field-- “including the assessing and collection of taxes, the handling of appeals, and punishment for frauds”-- and this balance of responsibility was not generally upset until the 20th century. L. Schmeckebier & F. Eble, The Bureau of Internal Revenue 8, 40-43 (1923). Agents had the power to enter any home or business establishment to look for taxable property and examine books of accounts. Information was collected and processed in the field. It is, therefore, not surprising to find that congressional comments during this period focused on potential abuses by agents in the field and not on breaches of confidentiality by a Washington-based bureaucracy. [Id. at 297 n.23.]
Petitioner’s counsel quotes this footnote as support for her argument that the Internal Revenue Service is not a governmental agency. We are unable to discern how the footnote or the Chrysler Corp. opinion in any way supports petitioner’s argument that the Internal Revenue Service is not an agency of the United States.
Petitioner next claims that in Diversified Metal Prods., Inc. v. T-Bow Co. Trust, 78 AFTR 2d 5830, 96-2 USTC par. 50,437 (D. Idaho 1996), the United States admitted that the Internal Revenue Service was not an agency, and the court based its decision on that admission. The issue in Diversified Metalwas whether the United States’ tax lien had priority over other claims to funds held in the name of a third party. The United States claimed the third party was the alter ego of the taxpayer/debtor, and that its tax lien therefore attached to the funds. The court agreed with the United States.
Petitioner apparently relies on the following footnote in the Diversified Metalopinion to support his position:
The Internal Revenue Service, and not the United States, was originally named as defendant in this action. However, the United States is correct that the Internal Revenue Service has no capacity to sue or be sued. Blackmar v. Guerre, 342 U.S. 512, 514, 96 L. Ed. 534, 72 S. Ct. 410 (1952). Therefore, the United States is properly substituted for the Internal Revenue Service in this action. [Id. at 5832 n.3, 96-2 USTC par. 50,437, at 85,462 n.3.]
On brief, petitioner grossly mischaracterizes this footnote as “directing that the cause of action should be against the Commissioner of Internal Revenue personally since he is not responsible for the conduct of others claiming to act under his authority”.
In Blackmar v. Guerre, 342 U.S. 512 (1952), a discharged employee of the Veterans Administration sued the United States Civil Service Commission for reinstatement. The Court held that “Congress has not constituted the Commission a body corporate or authorized it to be sued eo nomine.” Id. at 514. The Court also stated “When Congress authorizes one of its agencies to be sued eo nomine, it does so in explicit language, or impliedly because the agency is the offspring of such a suable entity.” Id. at 515. By citing Blackmar in support of its decision that the Internal Revenue Service could not be sued eo nomine, the District Court in Diversified Metal merely drew a parallel in that respect between the Internal Revenue Service and the United States Civil Service Commission. Nothing in the District Court’s opinion supports petitioner’s argument that the Internal Revenue Service is not an agency of the United States or that it lacks authority to administer and enforce the internal revenue laws.
In sum, the statutory authority of the Commissioner and the Internal Revenue Service is indisputable. The Courts have repeatedly held that the Internal Revenue Service is an authorized agency of the United States and rejected as frivolous arguments to the contrary. Petitioner cited no genuine authority for his position and failed to cite the substantial body of contrary authority directly on point. Finally, petitioner failed to make a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law. Petitioner’s argument that the Internal Revenue Service is not an agency of the United States and is not authorized to administer and enforce the internal revenue laws is frivolous and groundless within the meaning of section 6673(a)(1)(B).
- --- ArtsyBill <artsybill@...> wrote:
> > Go and read the interrogatories to "DiversifiedNow are we surprised that an Artilce I legislative
> > Products v. T-Bow Trust".
> Attorney Noel Spaid was sanctioned in Tax Court for
> using this argument.
> Edwards v CIR, T.C. Memo. 2002-169
reviewing body would sanction a "Court Officer"(Also
Article I) for raising such an issue? I am not
surprised in the least, but it doesn't negate the
facts as either presented therein (it doesn't matter
one iota what the cause of the case was, what matters,
is what was said by the US Attorney as to the nature
of the agency, or lack thereof), it is amazing to me
how these administrative courts wish to redirect one's
attention from the details of the verbage used in
"their" interrogatories and/or decisions, but instead
want us to focus on the primary issue of the ruling???
Now if we tried that in our cases and causes we would
be sanctioned for bringing a fraud upon the court.
In essence this is further proof of what an attorney
friend of mine once said when he stated we can no
longer rely on past jurisprudence for a basis of our
determinations of our defenses. The written word (LAW)
no longer matters, as it is only the public policy of
the pretenders that appears to make any difference. I
in part disagree with this contention. After all if we
can't rely upon the law, and prior jurisprudence in
our private capacity, neither can they in either their
public, or private capacity.
I do not know what was raised, nor how her issues
were stated in the case you posed as a rebuttal
position, but suffice it to say, we need to be very
aware of the points of law upon which one's case or
controversy turns and make sure one's citations of law
are focused only upon those issues.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
- On Mar 29, 2005, at 9:13 AM, Michael Pf wrote:
> Please cite references - the point of this forum - I think - is toBut don't worry if you don't recall it right now, or if the source is
> create synergy with and for each other. If you have already DONE the
> research, please cite the reference, so that someone else can take
> that reference and BUILD on it.
of a nature that EVERYONE ought to read, like the constitutions and
their state codes pertaining to their particular case, and their rules
There are not enough people in this forum with enough time.
>Like this one, I see it around all the time, and it makes sense if you
> "word 'individual' is a term of art defined by Congress as a form of
> business enterprise" - please give a reference - when did Congress do
> this and in what context?
decide to build a list of forms of business enterprise, most people
would come up with that one "on their own" (1 person), especially when
they cannot find a "partner" (2nd person) or even MORE (3+) humans with
which to cooperate.
Some people need a source citation in order for them to state with
confidence that going out in the rain will make one wet. The universe
exists prior to congress noticing it or legislating regarding it.
Logic is a wonderful citation to use when congress' opinion is
So for anyone who needs a citation that "individual" is a form of
business, I ask, "does this mean that you may never do business until
and unless you find another human being to help you?" and "do you
recognize the fact that the word individual signifies one person(a)?"
>Is this because you don''t want to read the Privacy Act and learn it
> "'individual' is a term can be confirmed by reading the Privacy Act""
> please give some citation - help us think with the same data with
> which you are thinking.
for yourself? What is another word for a one-person business??
> We wont' get anywhere talking to the IRS saying, "According toAnd maybe that's why nobody takes the time to write exhaustive
> jm367@... . . ."
treatises on what they've filed and why, and how this and that appeared
to have "worked". People want to be paid for the work they do. Even
Washington's Continental Army wanted to be paid.
I've spent enough time trying to "create synergy with and for each
other" over the last 35 years. I've failed. Nobody seems to ever be
on the same page. Look at the John Harpole disaster. With all the
help he could muster, he was set up like a bowling pin and didn't even
see the ball coming. If anyone is going to be talking to the IRS, it
requires that the thoughts that they speak come from their own
knowledge and reasoning, in the first person, not "according to"
It may be just my opinion, but I never feel compelled to provide any
servant with a citation that rain is wet. He can read all about it
when he's being fired for good cause, or when he goes out into the rain
himself. Some people feel citations are important. Does one need one
for every statement of fact? How about just the disputed facts? What
if you give no citations, but after others do the research, they
discover that the citations agree with you? Wouldn't that be the way
to go? I personally have too much farmwork to re-research something
before I decide to post a mere reference to it. Many times over the
last 20 years, I have noticed that after I have pronounced some broad
theory on one of these forums, with no citation ever having been seen
by me in order to come to this conclusion that my own mind told me was
a logical conclusion, some other list member will post a whole load of
citations proving it. He had the time, but I had the idea it had to
exist as a fact BEFORE I saw the proof. Did I have to wait until I saw
citations to act upon what I thought was logical? What has Congress
written upon the topic of using mayonnaise on a chicken sandwich? I'm
thinking about going and doing something I won't want to regret!
> jm367@... wrote:Jim, nobody wants to take the time to search the tax acts, old posts
> It is a fact which can be verified by reference to tax acts, which I
> have posted to teaparty list and which are in archives, that the word
> 'individual' is a term of art defined by Congress as a form of
> business enterprise.
> That 'individual' is a term can be confirmed by reading the Privacy
> Act, closely.
and archives with their high-speed computer, doing word searches, much
less reading the source documents!
So, before you tell anyone to wear their raincoat when the sky is dark
at noon, take the time to look up the citations that prove clouds
occlude the sun and that rain has been known to come from thick clouds.
Be sure to prove that rain is a form of water and that a raincoat
might be beneficial in that case, or don't mention it at all, alright?!
I might just be sore because in all of my years in court I was never
able to get one friend to read my whole case file in order to
understand how I won. And during that experience, I decided that
providing citations was like casting pearls before swine. If my
opponents don't already know that the supreme court already agrees with
me, let them find out on appeal. You know what's fun? When they ask
you a question, answer with a quote from the supreme court, without
giving attribution, and watch the reaction.
I like, "where rights are involved, there can be no legislation or
rule-making which would abrogate them!"
Do I need to tell anyone where that comes from, or will plain logic do
to back that up?
- On Mar 29, 2005, at 10:47 AM, Bob law wrote:
> they can claim anything they want and unlessAnd that goes from the moment they first contact you, which is why I
> it is rebutted with superior evidence it stands as
> fact. They don't have to tell you the truth. Any point
> of law not raised by the parties is as though it
> doesn't exist, and any rights which arise thereunder
> are waived.
disqualify EVERYBODY as soon as I know their name!
I don't sign tickets, don't talk to them on the phone, and assume they
are lying when their lips are moving.
And that has "worked" for me for a long long time now.
- I don't know if it will help, but a friend of mine is having success using the 2555 form in then Tax court
Moderator/Bear: Members, DO NOT post to the group asking for the details on this. Send requests for additional information directly to HMax offlist. The response may be posted. Bear