| FORMS: 9.22 LETTER ABOUT VIOLATION OF LAW BY IRS EXAMINER |
| RIGHT click here for the Word 97 version of this document |
This form is to be sent following a tax examination meeting with the IRS in which rules of administrative procedure were violated. <<ADDRESS>> <<CITY>>, <<STATE>> <<ZIP>> <<DATE>>
Alleged SSN ***-**-**** Certified Mail # * *** *** *** Department of the Treasury Attn: Charles Rossotti RE: WILLFUL VIOLATION OF ESTABLISHED IRS LAW AND PROCEDURE BY THE IRS EXAMINATION DIVISION IN SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA Commissioner ____________: We have learned of the fact that you have commissioned a national survey that is administered out of Hopkins, Minnesota, by Dr. Peter H. Webb. We also understand that the survey is seeking information from the people as to what they thought of their due process of law as provided by the Examination Division, in their recent case. Since you are the head of the IRS under the Secretary of the Treasury, and have shown interest in discovering what the people are experiencing at the hands of the Examination Division, we are providing to you the following information and follow up. On or about August 11, 1999 we provided to your office a copy of a letter to Tax Examiner Julia Mathews, where we confronted her with her failure and refusal to comply with the instructions of the Secretary of the Treasury at 26 CFR § 601.105:
Ms. Mathews has sent us a recent letter dated September 27, 1999 where it is that she does not respond to the charges that we levied that she has failed and refused to comply with the requirement of the Secretary. The regulatory direction of the Secretary was that our file be forwarded to the National Office for examination, even if the IRS disagreed with our demand for meaningful administrative due process of law, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark case of Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970). In case your staff has not been briefing you about the battle that is brewing over Due Process of Law in the Examination Division, the Goldberg case is where the high court outlined what constitutes meaningful administrative due process of law:
The hearing must be "at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner."
Examiner Mathews also failed to inform us of our Administrative Appeal rights before the Appeals Division, as set forth in 26 CFR § 601.106, in violation of the published procedures of the IRS, Publications 1 & 5, the TAMRA of 1988, and 26 CFR § 601.105:
Why are the IRS Examination Offices keeping the question of our rudimentary due process rights as, set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970), from going to the National Examination Office? Is the IRS contending that the question of our rights to:
in the Examination Process is not a unique question, nor a question of national importance to be worthy of a determination of the National Office to handle our question of our rights as set forth in Goldberg once and for all? Please correct us if we are wrong, but we are certain that these rights exist within the Examination Process as:
By now, after almost a year, you, your Office, the Offices of the TIGTA, Assistant Commissioner Dolan, and the General Counsel for the IRS have all received dozens and dozens of copies of letters informing local IRS offices and officials of, and demanding, the administrative due process rights of individuals, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court. In consideration of this, why is it that you, your Office, the General Counsel’s Office, the TIGTA, and the Assistant Commissioner have all been silent regarding the growing question of our administrative due process rights as set forth by the High Court? If the General Counsel answered the question of our administrative due process rights to:
we would not be seeking a determination by National Office as to whether or not these rights are required in the Examination Process. Why is it that neither the Local District Offices nor the General Counsel are willing to answer our questions regarding these rights once and for all? Why is it that Julia Mathews and the Manager of the Santa Rosa Examination Office refuse to forward our file to the National Office, just as the Chicago District Director Robert Brazzil has directly defied the regulations and direct order of the Secretary by refusing to forward the file of Ms. June Harrison to the National Office, and the Wisconsin Office has achieved the same noncompliance with the law one Member's case by sending his File to the Regional Office in Austin, Texas, in direct defiance of the regulations of the Secretary? Why is it that the Examination Divisions fear a ruling on this question and demand for a determination regarding Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970)? We think we know why the IRS fears this question and the surrounding points of law and facts. Although the IRS and the Courts will not be able to handle the result of an affirmative determination on our due process rights by the National Offices or the General Counsel, it can hardly be said that the Nation will be able to endure the struggle that will ensue from a naked and admitted condition of denial of due process of law. The way we see this situation Commissioner is that the Economic Stabilization Program which the IRS administers by means of the Income Tax has been like a freight train securing the goods of society by the method of currency stabilization. It has been judicially victorious against the individual for the past 50 years because the Judiciary was not going to be responsible for destroying an economic system which directly effected and provided for the needs of the People of this Nation, and beyond. Things are different now. The argument that we present and will be forced to present is no longer reaching and complex, it is simply about Due Process of Law, that which upholds the foundation of Just and Human Civilization. It seems that the legal Freight Train like argument, known as the need to preserve the economic system of the People, will now collide with the Passenger Train of Due Process of Law, which is not only the foundation of human Society, but American Jurisprudence says without which there can hardly be said to be private property and any need of laws. Please note that without private property there is no corporate property, and then no commerce. Without Due Process of law there is no need for any laws, any Congress, any Executive Branch, Lawyers, Law Schools, Courts or Judges. It was just a matter of time Commissioner Rossotti before the people would learn how to argue against the denial of due process of the IRS. Now the argument is so simple that we are easily prepared to bring it to court and force the Judicial branch to either dislocate the Economic Stabilization Program or rule that there is no due process of law, and thus violate the 1st, 5th, and 6th Amendments in the Bill of Rights. For almost a year your office has been copied on many situations such as ours. For almost a year now your office has had the opportunity to pull the switch that would avert the collision of the trains of the Economic Stabilization Program with the inalienable right of the People to Meaningful Due Process of Law. Are you ready to throw the switch now and avert the eventual collision of this matter in the Judiciary? We think that you should consider informing the Santa Rosa and Oakland Offices to end this Inquisition immediately and avert this collision, or you will have to entrust it to the District Court who can throw the switch or defer to the 9th Circuit, who can avert the collision or defer it to the U.S. Supreme Court. Keep in mind, if the Courts send this matter to the higher level by blocking justice, this will be sold to the People by propagandists as a naked denial of due process of law and the Courts aiding the Executive Branch in refusing to assure fair procedure, not allowing persons to respond to charges against them, and failing to promote a sense of legitimacy of official government behavior. "The central aim of due process doctrine is to assure fair procedure when the government imposes a burden on an individual. The doctrine seeks to prevent arbitrary government, avoid mistaken deprivations, allow persons to know about and respond to charges against them, and promote a sense of the legitimacy of official behavior. (The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States/ Edited by K. Hall, p. 236)(emphasis added) We are certain that the right-wing radicals will make hay out of this, as they have other things of lesser substance, but in this case it will be a naked and clearly exhibited denial of due process of law that can be clearly communicated to all people of all racial and economic classes Is this the future that you wish to make? Do you think that this nation can handle this naked and unmasked reality? Personally, we would just like to have the money taken from us returned, no more money taken from us anymore under the guise of income taxation, so that we will have nothing to claim against the IRS, and then to be left alone. Otherwise, in this time of great and overwhelming public outrage towards IRS actions and activities, as well as the public questioning of the legitimacy of its actions, Due Process of Law is the only solution to regaining public trust, and quelling the general public outrage towards the IRS. Should you and your office not be interested in verifying or responding to these issues, it will be apparent that the Administration is not interested in carrying out its mandate to perform its official functions and explain its behavior, seemingly outside of its own published procedures, that would have promoted a sense and appearance of legitimacy in the public eye. Such behavior is not only in rebellion against the Office of the Secretary of the Treasury and his Boss the President of the United States of America, but is an affront to the U.S. Congress and the People by whose pleasure, they all govern. Make no mistake about it. We demand an immediate account of all actions under the law and the IRM, or we demand due process of law pursuant to it and the determination of the High Court. The IRS has a choice, this matter can cost this nation everything (Public Peace, Economic Stabilization, Public Trust, the Judicial, Legislative, and Executive Branches of Government, and the Commerce), or it can cost it very little (the little bit that it has taken from us). Commissioner, we hope that you see the wisdom in having this matter handled quietly and to our personal satisfaction. Please take notice that by the time that you have read this letter it will have already been disseminated and posted to thousands of people. So, we look forward to a most prompt, on point, civilized, and good faith response from you and your delegates. Failure to properly comply will make you a party to this future action, that you can avert, and we will most certainly seek the million-dollar penalty against you for personally and willfully disregard of the internal revenue laws. We hope that this will either settle this matter of our rights pursuant to the Goldberg case, or that this matter be quietly settled. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. _________________________ _________________________ <<NAME>> CC'd to:U.S. Department of the Treasury The Honorable Senator Diane Feinstein Certified Mail # The Honorable Senator Barbara Boxer U.S. Department of the Treasury Department of the Treasury Department of the Treasury Department of the Treasury Department of the Treasury Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service Department of the Treasury President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton The Honorable William Roth The Honorable Trent Lott The Honorable Fred Thompson
|