Sample Response to IRS

[mrsat_98]

Dear :

This letter is a written protest to various “IRS Letters” allegedly signed by you and others and copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibits.

My correspondence is submitted pursuant to instructions in Internal Revenue Service Publication 5, “Your Appeal Rights and How to Prepare a Protest If You Don't Agree”. Please note that I request all future communications to be in written form pursuant to the “Plain Writing Act 2010” E.O. 13563, further referenced in Executive Orders “E.O.12866” & “E.O. 12988”, therefore allowing a more plain, permanent legal paper record may be maintained for possible court adjudication.

I am specifically appealing your demand for payment to the appeals office and I hereby request a conference with your local Arkansas agent for the years you have proposed a change. Since this appeal confines its alleged subject matter in challenging the proposed assessment within the scope of the Internal Revenue Laws, as described in “I.R.S. Publication 5”, an appeals conference is legally requested and authorized as an available appeal right to me. Pursuant to said publication, this letter is to serve as a statement of facts and conclusions of law relied on by me, John Q Slavenomore Attachment”B” serves as the schedule of disputed issues.

All information, legal representatives and I have investigated as published in written law, and by the “I.R.S.” and the “Department of Justice”, including “I.R.S. Notice 609”, state: “you must file a return for any tax that you are liable for”, whereas said fails acknowledgment of the mere earning of wages as a lawful component of the requirement under “Subtitle A” as stated under “Title 26 USC (IRC) § 6012”, other than under “IRC § 1441(b)”, which only includes the “wages” of a non-resident alien "person" [see IRC § 7701(a)(1)].

Additionally, the absence of liability for tax under “IRC Section 1461” was a critical factor in my assessment and determination regarding the absence of any requirement for my person to file a return, as I was unable to identify any statute in all of ”Subtitle A”, other than “1461”, that made any other person in any other capacity liable for the payment of federal income tax other than the “Withholding Agent” [see IRC § 7701(a)(16)] identified in “Section 1461” as being liable for the tax that he has collected from foreign persons subject to “the income tax provisions of the tariff act of October 3, 1913” [See Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co, 240 US 1,@ 9 – {first sentence of the decision Opinion}].

Additionally, I have not, nor have I ever, acted in the capacity of “Withholding Agent”, as said term is defined in “IRC § 7701(a)(16)”, specifically defining the only class of persons made liable, “AS FEDERAL TAX COLLECTORS” for the payment of income tax in “Subtitle A” ( - similar to the way a commercial establishment is made liable for the payment of a sales tax within the States - as a collector of tax), within the tax modules (years) referenced in your letter. Therefore, evidence I have no liability involving “Subtitle A” income taxes under “Section 1461” for the period in question. I further state that I did not receive any foreign-earned income during the period in question and therefore no statutory requirement to file an income tax return attaches to me. Unless it is your contention that the amounts you mention in your letter have been derived from foreign taxable sources it would appear that your form “Letters 2050” or otherwise have been addressed in error with association to me.

You also included copies of a transcript which purports to show amounts paid to me for the years in question, however, as stated above, I do not fall within the class of persons made liable for income tax by “I.R.C. § 1461”, the only statute found in “Subtitle A” which establishes a liability for such tax, and I am not myself a non-resident alien person subject to and liable for payment of federal income tax as identified in “Treasury Decision 2313 (Exhibit C)”. If you believe that there is any tax due on "taxable income", the law suggests that you should be contacting the parties that made the payment of the “gross income”, not any party that received such payment, - similar to the way the federal gift tax laws require that the gift tax be collected from the person that made the gift, NOT the person who received the taxable gift.

Further, when I reference “Title 26, Code Federal Regulations, Section 602.101 (Exhibit D)” to determine from the statutes and regulations what specific tax return form is actually specified as being required by the law to satisfy the statutory liability for federal income tax that is established under “Section 1 (and Subtitle A) of Title 26”, I see that up until the year 2001, Form 2555, clearly titled “Foreign Earned Income”, the only form listed in the law, as being required by law. Since year 2001, no form at all is listed in the law under this Section as being required by law. Therefore, would you please distinguish for me how “you” an agent and/or assign lawfully representing “Internal Revenue Service” as its delegated representative to speak for its authority have determined from the law what form is required by law from me to satisfy requirements of any given statute? “Example, Section 1”. Without that determination how is it possible to know exactly which persons are required to file what forms? Or is this all just spuriously simulated? I swear to you now, under penalty of perjury, pursuant to this legal verified rebuttal that I have had no foreign earned income in any of the tax years at issue immediately before us at issue in this instant matter in chief, thusly pursuant to findings of fact and conclusions of law no requirement to file any tax return pursuant to published letter of the law is attached to me, John Q Slavenomore, affiant hereto.

Whereas, your letters are in error. I did not make or file any form of tax return for the years in question that could be “examined”, “adjusted” or “changed”. Nor did I make any agreement with or request any assistance from anyone employed by the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6020(a) involving anything relating to the instant disputed years in chief. Therefore, how could there have been any examination, any change, any adjustment, or any assessment of a tax return having never has existed?

“The taxpayer return is considered the account.” Internal Revenue Manual Chapter 3, § 3(17)(46)1.2(10)(a). As you are surely aware, “§ 6020(b)(2)” requires any “return” prepared by Secretary or employees, agents and/or assigns of the I.R.S. must be subscribed — that is, signed — in order for it to be “prima facie good and sufficient for all legal purposes.” In addition, “IRC § 6065” requires that all returns be signed under penalty of perjury. I am hereby requesting that a copy be immediately provided to me, of any returns or substitute for returns that you may have or had allegedly prepared with respect to me under the authority of “IRC § 6020(b)”, allowing me to verify that they have been signed and sworn to, under penalty of perjury as required pursuant these statutes, whereas I may take appropriate legal action against all persons involved in any violations of law that become apparent if they have not.

Whereas, your letter is also in violation of “§§ 6061 and 6065”, I insist that this action be abated pursuant to “26 U.S.C. §§ 6213(b)(2) and 6404(a)(3)”. However, if you are devising to continue pressing this claim of assessment, please exemplify specifically any statutory authority, pursuant to the “Plain Writing Act 2010”, identified herein supra, that you claim to be acting in pursuance thereof in accordance to judicial proper notice and opportunity to respond.

Further, your letters fail to mention any Code section or regulation which you claim requires me to file a “federal income tax return”; therefore, please exemplify specifically such code section containing such statutory requirement in reply to this letter or in the alternative cease and desist. In light of all of the above, it should be clear that I had no requirement at law to file any returns for the years at issue. Therefore, I could not refuse nor fail to comply with any law.

Specifically agent Felicia S Tipton, and all agents and/or assigns of the “I.R.S.”, for the above reasons you shall consider this letter as a Citizens Right to dispute to your authority. I believe the prima facie facts involving this matter are reason enough to put you and “I.R.S.” Agents and Assigns on notice that this is a wrongful assessment procedure. If you do not respond within 30 days, allowing the addition of 3 days for mailing of the date of this correspondence, of this protest granting a conference, I demand that you forward my appeal rights. If the above enumerated facts are not rebutted separately and individually, they will be presumed to be correct.

I declare that the statement of facts presented in this protest and in any accompanying schedules are true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

If I do not receive from you within 30 days, allowing the addition of 3 days for mailing of the date of this correspondence disputing your claim, it shall be presumed that the information provided herein accurately reflects the correct application of the requirements within the Internal Revenue Code applicable to me under the instant circumstances in chief to file an income tax return. Further, it shall be presumed that your notice was addressed in error and that this matter in chief is closed.

Sincerely,

__________________________________

[TheCount]

Fantastic way to receive a frivpen.

[mrsat_98]

[Weston White]

Fantastic way to receive a frivpen.

How so? Frivolous penalties are not issued upon the mere making of requests or demands, sought clarification or answering of their questions.

Is it of your opinion that one should be downright scared to stand up for themselves when addressing the IRS or whatever other federal bully-aucracy (bureaucracy)?

[Czolgosz]

The moment a person is able to argue their way out of paying taxes is the same moment the charade is over. Ie, that'll never happen in *their* system of justus.

You free yourself from a bully with violence. Welcome to Humanity.

[otherone]

You free yourself from a bully with violence. Welcome to Humanity.

The threat of violence works, too.

[Sonny Tufts]

I was unable to identify any statute in all of ”Subtitle A”, other than “1461”, that made any other person in any other capacity liable for the payment of federal income tax other than the “Withholding Agent”

Try Section 6151: "Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, when a return of tax is required under this title or regulations, the person required to make such return shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return (determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the return)."

[Acala]

If the statutes did not require the payment of income taxes on wages Congress would amend it in a New York minute. But they don't have to.

[CPUd]

Let us know how it works out.

[Weston White]

Try Section 6151: "Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, when a return of tax is required under this title or regulations, the person required to make such return shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return (determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the return)."

I believe the concern being addressed is the omission of overt liability whenever addressing individuals, further noting the qualifier in the above statute “when a return of tax is required under this title or regulations”. Reviewing the various aspects of 26 USC serves to highlight that concern (i.e., impositions versus liabilities):

§ 1461: Every person required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter is hereby made liable for such tax

§ 1: There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of

§ 3101: In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax

§ 3402: every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax

§ 6011: When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title

§ 6012: Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following

§ 6051: Every person required to deduct and withhold from an employee a tax under section 3101 or 3402

§ 6151: when a return of tax is required under this title or regulations

§ 6331: If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same

[mrsat_98]

http://www.agenturus.org/TaxAvoidance.htm

I have had an interest in this since the sales tax people got my underwear tied in a not in 1993 and I got a copy of "the story of the buck act". At that point I could not believe the state was deriving its authority from article 1-8-17-18 article 4-3-2 but was right there in plain site. Since then I have read everything I could get my hands on. I thought Tom Cryer did a good job explaining it, then I found the above link. I think Danke has shared it here as well. I urge everyone with an interest in Income tax to read it. It is a page turner better than any book I have ever read.

[mrsat_98]

I believe the concern being addressed is the omission of overt liability whenever addressing individuals, further noting the qualifier in the above statute “when a return of tax is required under this title or regulations”. Reviewing the various aspects of 26 USC serves to highlight that concern (i.e., impositions versus liabilities):

§ 1461: Every person required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter is hereby made liable for such tax

§ 1: There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of

§ 3101: In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax

§ 3402: every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax

§ 6011: When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title

§ 6012: Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following

§ 6051: Every person required to deduct and withhold from an employee a tax under section 3101 or 3402

§ 6151: when a return of tax is required under this title or regulations

§ 6331: If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same

See chapter 2 of the link in the above post.

[TheCount]

How so? Frivolous penalties are not issued upon the mere making of requests or demands, sought clarification or answering of their questions.

Is it of your opinion that one should be downright scared to stand up for themselves when addressing the IRS or whatever other federal bully-aucracy (bureaucracy)?

The position taken in the letter is, verbatim, a frivolous tax argument. http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals...ction-I-A-to-C

2. Contention: Only foreign-source income is taxable.

Some individuals and groups maintain that there is no federal statute imposing a tax on income derived from sources within the United States by citizens or residents of the United States. They argue instead that federal income taxes are excise taxes imposed only on nonresident aliens and foreign corporations for the privilege of receiving income from sources within the United States. The premise for this argument is a misreading of sections 861, et seq., and 911, et seq., as well as the regulations under those sections. These frivolous assertions are contrary to well-established legal precedent.

The Law: As stated above, for federal income tax purposes, “gross income” means all income from whatever source derived and includes compensation for services. I.R.C. § 61. Further, Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(b) provides, “[i]n general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States.” Sections 861 and 911 define the sources of income (U.S. versus non-U.S. source income) for such purposes as the prevention of double taxation of income that is subject to tax by more than one country. These sections neither specify whether income is taxable nor determine or define gross income.

The IRS warned taxpayers of the consequences of making these frivolous arguments. Rev. Rul. 2004-28, 2004-1 C.B. 624 (discussing section 911); Rev. Rul. 2004-30, 2004-1 C.B. 622 (discussing section 861).

Relevant Case Law:

United States v. Ambort, 405 F.3d 1109 (10th Cir. 2005) – the court affirmed the conviction and 108-month sentence of Ernest G. Ambort for willfully aiding and assisting in the preparation of false income tax returns, specifically for the seminars he conducted during which he falsely instructed the attendees that they could claim to be nonresident aliens with no domestic-source income, regardless of place of birth, so that they were exempt from most federal income taxes.

Great-West Life Assurance Co. v. United States, 678 F.2d 180, 183 (Ct. Cl. 1982) – the court stated that “[t]he determination of where income is derived or ‘sourced’ is generally of no moment to either United States citizens or United States corporations, for such persons are subject to tax under sections 1 and 11, respectively, on their worldwide income.”

Takaba v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 285, 295 (2002) – the court rejected the petitioner’s argument that income received from sources within the United States is not taxable income, stating that “[t]he 861 argument is contrary to established law and, for that reason, frivolous.” The court imposed sanctions against the petitioner in the amount of $15,000, as well as sanctions against the petitioner’s attorney in the amount of $10,500, for making such groundless arguments.

Corcoran v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-18, 83 T.C.M. (CCH) 1108, 1110 (2002) – the court rejected the petitioner’s argument that their income was not from any of the sources in Treas. Reg. § 1.861-8(f), stating that the “source rules [of sections 861 through 865] do not exclude from U.S. taxation income earned by U.S. citizens from sources within the United States.” The court further required the petitioners to pay a $2,000 penalty under section 6673(a)(1) because “they . . . wasted limited judicial and administrative resources.”

Williams v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 136, 138 (2000) – the court rejected the petitioner’s argument that his income was not from any of the sources listed in Treas. Reg. § 1.861-8(a), characterizing it as “reminiscent of tax-protester rhetoric that has been universally rejected by this and other courts.”

Other Cases:

Hillecke v. United States, 2009 WL 2015009, 2009-2 U.S.T.C. ¶ 50,481 (D. Or. Jun. 30, 2009); United States v. Thompson, 2009 WL 1531571, 103 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2009-2421 (E.D. Cal. May 28, 2009); Rodriguez v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-92, 97 T.C.M. (CCH) 1482 (2009); Madge v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-370, 80 T.C.M. (CCH) 804 (2000); Aiello v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-40, 69 T.C.M. (CCH) 1765 (1995); Solomon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-509, 66 T.C.M. (CCH) 1201, 1202 (1993).

“Like moths to a flame, some people find themselves irresistibly drawn to the tax protester movement’s illusory claim that there is no legal requirement to pay federal income tax. And, like moths, these people sometimes get burned.” United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 499-500 (7th Cir. 1991).

[Sonny Tufts]

I believe the concern being addressed is the omission of overt liability whenever addressing individuals

Such a concern is baseless. Section 6012 says that if a person has income above a certain amount, he must file a return, and Section 6151 says that if one has to file a return he SHALL PAY the tax. There is no requirement, as some deluded tax protesters believe, that the magic word "liability" must appear in the statute.

Purportedly in support of his claim, plaintiff submitted a statement along with the Form 1040, in which he argues that no provision of the IRC establishes an income tax ‘liability.’ The plain language of the IRC, however, belies this assertion, stating in section 1 that a tax is ‘hereby IMPOSED on the taxable income of every individual’ (emphasis added). Although plaintiff attempts to distinguish between ‘imposing’ a tax and creating a ‘liability’ for a tax, there is no difference. Every individual has an affirmative duty to pay taxes. Porcaro v. United States, 84 AFTR2d ¶99-5547, No. 99-CV-60406-AA (U.S.D.C. E.D. Mich. October 25, 1999).

Sasscer makes the puzzling argument that section 1461 is the only provision in the Internal Revenue Code that imposes liability for paymen of a tax on ‘income.’ Without belaboring the issue, the Court notes that 26 U.S.C. section 1 could hardly be more clear in imposing a tax on ‘income.’ United States v. Sasscer, 86 AFTR2d ¶2000-5317, n. 3, 2000 TNT 186-76, No. Y-97-3026 (D.C. Md. 8/25/2000).

Plaintiff’s arguments are no less frivolous here. [Footnote omitted.] First, Plaintiff argues the Code does not impose a tax ‘liability’. The plain language of the Code belies this, stating the tax is ‘imposed’. See 96 [sic] U.S.C. section 1. He attempts to distinguish between ‘imposing’ a tax and creating a ‘liability’ for tax. The Court fails to see a difference. Individuals have an affirmative duty to pay taxes. Tornichio v. United States, 81 AFTR2d ¶98-582, KTC 1998-71 (N.D.Ohio 1998), (suit for refund of frivolous return penalties dismissed and sanctions imposed for filing a frivolous refund suit), aff’d 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 5248, 99-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶50,394, 83 AFTR2d ¶99-579, KTC 1999-147 (6th Cir. 1999), (with sanctions imposed for filing a frivolous appeal).

Appellants’ argument that the Internal Revenue Code does not define income or impose income tax liability on individuals is also meritless. 26 U.S.C. section 1 clearly imposes income tax liability on individuals. Liddane v. Commissioner, KTC 2000-28, No. 99-5499 (3d Cir. 1/14/2000), aff’ng T.C. Memo 1999-330 (referring to “the same partially incomprehensible but thoroughly frivolous arguments that they are not liable for Federal income taxes,” the Tax Court imposed sanctions of $10,000 for each docketed case for filing frivolous petitions).

As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: ... (7) no statutory authority exists for imposing an income tax on individuals.... Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).

The Plaintiffs further assert, in their Reply Memorandum dated September 12, 2005, that the ‘IRS has repeatedly refused to show [Plaintiffs] where in the [Internal Revenue] Code it makes [Plaintiffs] “liable for” the tax they claim is owed.’ Plfs.’ Reply at p. 7. The Plaintiffs allege that it is ‘abundantly unclear’ what the term taxpayer, as used throughout the IRC, means, and state that ‘when [the United States] can show where [Plaintiffs are] ‘subject to” or “liable for” a so-called tax, at that point [Plaintiff] will gladly pay the tax.’ Id. At 4, 10. However, the Government does not have the burden of showing the Plaintiffs ‘where’ they are ‘subject’ or ‘liable for’ the tax before the tax is paid. The comprehensive administrative enforcement scheme and judicial review process with which the Government is required to proceed under the IRS code is well established and none of it requires the Government to answer the Plaintiffs’ philosophical questions regarding the tax system. For a clear explanation of ‘where in the law subjects the Plaintiffs to tax,’ the court directs the Plaintiffs’ attention to Amendment XVI of the Constitution and the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 1, which is entitled ‘Tax Imposed.’ Celauro v. United States, 411 F. Supp. 2D 257, 269, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3147, 2006-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50,168, 97 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 761, No. 05-cv-02245-ADS-WDW (U.S.D.C. E.D. N.Y. 1/28/2006).

[Weston White]

The position taken in the letter is, verbatim, a frivolous tax argument.

Frivolous penalties do not apply to correspondence, but only to tax return submissions that are so frivolous that they are either no longer capable of being readily processed by trained IRS employees or are otherwise criminally bootleg, harassing, or threatening in nature towards governmental employees or offices.

Furthermore, the making of a proper claim of refund is exempted from frivolous penalties, a fact ignored by the IRS through its own willful acts of negligence.

The mere making of a frivolous argument in itself is protected speech. IRS employees are tasked only with processing tax returns and inquiring into questionable discrepancies for insight and clarification, not with practicing law.

Such a concern is baseless. Section 6012 says that if a person has income above a certain amount, he must file a return, and Section 6151 says that if one has to file a return he SHALL PAY the tax. There is no requirement, as some deluded tax protesters believe, that the magic word "liability" must appear in the statute.

Not so much. Establishing legal liability (i.e., to be made legallly liable), as in most matters of law, requires both a financial obligation and a responsibility obligation. The above statute establishes only the former, while the latter is entirely avoided with respect to individuals. There exists only a presumption of liability or liability by way of volunteerism. Ergo, to impose is to levy a charge, a liability is to make responsible—these are in no way synonymous.

You are avoiding the question being raised; that being exactly who has been made legally liable to file a tax return in order to pay the tax deemed imposed? (Answer, certainly not individuals.) This concern is somewhat akin to the ACA’ individual mandate, which the IRS has been, precluded any mechanism to actually enforce it (outside of abusing its rulemaking powers to make deductions from the individual’s income tax refund). Noting:

(1) An income tax upon certain taxable sums has been imposed and that is shall be deducted and withheld by those so required;
(2) Income tax returns shall be filed when so required for payment or refund, and;
(3) Section 6012 expands upon the general requirements beset by Section 6011, therein stipulating a ‘made liable for any tax’ requirement.

The enforcement statutes throughout the IRC consistently make reference to only those who have been made liable, for which no individual has been.

[TheCount]

Frivolous penalties do not apply to correspondence

The letter clearly states that the writer filed a tax return based on a frivolous argument.

[Sonny Tufts]

You are avoiding the question being raised; that being exactly who has been made legally liable to file a tax return in order to pay the tax deemed imposed? (Answer, certainly not individuals.)

Nonsense. I cited Section 6012, which specifies the persons required to file returns, and it clearly applies to individuals:

Section 6012

(a) General rule
Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following:

(1) (A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount...[certain exceptions follow]

Your attempt to impose Section 6011's "made liable for any tax" upon Section 6012 is unavailing. You obviously didn't read Section 6011(h):

(h) Income, estate, and gift taxes
For requirement that returns of income, estate, and gift taxes be made whether or not there is tax liability, see subparts B and C.

Since Section 6012 is in subpart B, it's obvious that the requirement to file an income tax return is not dependent upon liability.

[roho76]

The position taken in the letter is, verbatim, a frivolous tax argument. http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals...ction-I-A-to-C

You're really going to sight the IRS.gov to prove we owe taxes? Really? Should we rely on tem to be honest when it comes to my tax exempt orginization status or should I just do what I'm told and read the IRS.gov to find out how fair and compassionate they are?

Using the fed.gov to prove your point on this forum is pure comedic gold.

[HOLLYWOOD]

This whole IRS system, tax code, Congressional-US Treasury theft and RICO system is outta control

GE Filed 57,000-Page Tax Return, Paid No Taxes on $14 Billion in Profits

[Pericles]

I sent a return, it must have been on one of your hard drives that crashed.

[Inkblots]

I sent a return, it must have been on one of your hard drives that crashed.

Well, that's at least as likely to get you out of paying income tax as the arguments in the OP. Actually, probably more so, since there isn't established legal precedent (that I'm aware of) declaring that argument frivolous.

[mrsat_98]

http://thematrixhasyou.org/PDF/testf...fessionals.pdf

This should be very entertaining.

[dude58677]

Frivolous penalties do not apply to correspondence, but only to tax return submissions that are so frivolous that they are either no longer capable of being readily processed by trained IRS employees or are otherwise criminally bootleg, harassing, or threatening in nature towards governmental employees or offices.

Furthermore, the making of a proper claim of refund is exempted from frivolous penalties, a fact ignored by the IRS through its own willful acts of negligence.

The mere making of a frivolous argument in itself is protected speech. IRS employees are tasked only with processing tax returns and inquiring into questionable discrepancies for insight and clarification, not with practicing law.



Not so much. Establishing legal liability (i.e., to be made legallly liable), as in most matters of law, requires both a financial obligation and a responsibility obligation. The above statute establishes only the former, while the latter is entirely avoided with respect to individuals. There exists only a presumption of liability or liability by way of volunteerism. Ergo, to impose is to levy a charge, a liability is to make responsible—these are in no way synonymous.

You are avoiding the question being raised; that being exactly who has been made legally liable to file a tax return in order to pay the tax deemed imposed? (Answer, certainly not individuals.) This concern is somewhat akin to the ACA’ individual mandate, which the IRS has been, precluded any mechanism to actually enforce it (outside of abusing its rulemaking powers to make deductions from the individual’s income tax refund). Noting:

(1) An income tax upon certain taxable sums has been imposed and that is shall be deducted and withheld by those so required;
(2) Income tax returns shall be filed when so required for payment or refund, and;
(3) Section 6012 expands upon the general requirements beset by Section 6011, therein stipulating a ‘made liable for any tax’ requirement.

The enforcement statutes throughout the IRC consistently make reference to only those who have been made liable, for which no individual has been.

Stop wasting time with this guy. He is not an honest debater no matter how rational you are he will never admit he is wrong and you won't learn anything.

[TheCount]

You're really going to sight the IRS.gov to prove we owe taxes? Really? Should we rely on tem to be honest when it comes to my tax exempt orginization status or should I just do what I'm told and read the IRS.gov to find out how fair and compassionate they are?

Using the fed.gov to prove your point on this forum is pure comedic gold.

I guess if you can't possibly address the content of their message, you can just attack the messenger instead.

[dude58677]

I guess if you can't possibly address the content of their message, you can just attack the messenger instead.

You're a troll! Beat it!

[TheCount]

You're a troll! Beat it!

Thank you for the demonstration.

[Weston White]

The letter clearly states that the writer filed a tax return based on a frivolous argument.

Presuming for the moment that is actually true, that is but one qualifier—the statute requires that at least two differing elements be present for the civil penalty to be legally enforceable.

Also, this thread is a about subsequent correspondence with the IRS, not about income tax filings.

I guess if you can't possibly address the content of their message, you can just attack their messenger instead.

FTFY

Nonsense. I cited Section 6012, which specifies the persons required to file returns, and it clearly applies to individuals:

The requirement for filing an income tax return is an aside to the greater issue, which concerns a legal liability for the tax (e.g., regardless if taxes are owed or not, the withholding process serves to lock you into filing a tax return in order to claim your refund)—again, the enforcement statutes, as provided above, clearly includes ‘liable’ within its language.

Your attempt to impose Section 6011's "made liable for any tax" upon Section 6012 is unavailing. You obviously didn't read Section 6011(h):

You seemed to gleam over the fact that the issue is not so much about a liability for filing tax returns (e.g., see penalty Sections 6651 and 7203), but about a liability for owing individual income taxes.

Since Section 6012 is in subpart B, it's obvious that the requirement to file an income tax return is not dependent upon liability.

The issue is more aptly two-fold, (1) if the requirements have not been met then no basis is established for filing a tax return; however, (2) if taxes are due or a refund on withholdings is owed then a tax return is obviously required. Yet again we come full circle back to the tax liability issue, being that it has been avoided when addressing individuals. Further shown below, concerning withholding overpayments (26 USC):

6401(c): An amount paid as tax shall not be considered not to constitute an overpayment solely by reason of the fact that there was no tax liability in respect of which such amount was paid.

6402(a): In the case of any overpayment, the Secretary, within the applicable period of limitations, may credit the amount of such overpayment, including any interest allowed thereon, against any liability in respect of an internal revenue tax on the part of the person who made the overpayment…

[dude58677]

Thank you for the demonstration.

This is a private forum and you are not an honest debater! Get lost!

[Sonny Tufts]

Yet again we come full circle back to the tax liability issue, being that it has been avoided when addressing individuals.

It hasn't been avoided. Section 6151 clearly states that if any person (and that term includes an individual) is required to file a return he shall pay the tax. To deny that this creates a liability or an obligation to pay tax is to display either sheer stupidity or a pigheaded refusal to face reality.

[dude58677]

It hasn't been avoided. Section 6151 clearly states that if any person (and that term includes an individual) is required to file a return he shall pay the tax. To deny that this creates a liability or an obligation to pay tax is to display either sheer stupidity or a pigheaded refusal to face reality.

You beat it too! Punk! We only debate honest people!