JWR
Forum Replies Created
Well, here's an update. Today (monday) I got another letter from that same SOB in Peoria. I'll post all the relevant parts for some feedback or thoughts on this situation.
It starts by refering to my letter, as posted above, then goes on to say:
Quote:Please be advised of the following items:Audio recording is allowed only in face-to-face conferences, and face-to-face hearings are available for taxpayers to raise valid collection alternitives or other relevant issuees pertaining to the lien or proposed levy.
Telephone conferences are recognized by the courts as a valid alternitive. See, for example, Wiliam and Diane Meyer v. Commisioner, 115 T.C. 31.
Your request for a hearing notes, among other items, that you are not liable for tax and that IRS has no authority to assess penalties or interest. On November 26, 2003, you were sent, by certified mail, a statutory Notice of Deficiency with respect to the tax year noted above. That Notice afforded you the opportunity to petition the United States Tax Court if you disagree with the proposed amount of tax or statutory additions. Since you were previously offered the opportunity to question liability, the issue of the underlying liability cannot be raised as a part of collection due process. See IRC section 6330©(2)(B ).
Then he goes on to say that if I want a “face-to-face” that I must describe the legitimate issues I wish to discuss, those being limited to “appropriate spousal defenses, challenges to the appropriateness of collection actions, and offers of collection alternatives.” Then wants me to fill out form 433-A.
After that, in the last paragraph, he says:
Quote:Your list of ligitimate issues and completed Form 433-A and attachments should be recieved in this office no later than October 28, 2004. Upon receipt, I will advise you of the reschedualed hearing date and time. If we do not recieve the required items, or if there is no response, we will issue the required determination letter based on information already in the file.On the point one, I must say I did raise valid points. On point two, Tax Court is irrelevant as I am not a “taxpayer”, and tax court cases, as I remember, only pertain to the specific case it refers to. On point three, I challenged that NOD and demanded their authority and asked them about liability and the like and recieved no response but more collection activity.
And as far as improper collection actions, I can name quite a few, such as blatant fraud in my files. And I don't think I have the time, especially as I type slow, to list all of the improper things that are being perpetrated by these crooks.
I don't believe I will fill out that Form 433-A as none of my assetts, what little I have, are any of their business. The only things that aren't protected are my job and my auto (I don't own a “motor vehicle” 🙂 )
I do have about a week to get this done, but would still like to hear your thoughts on this. I am sure they won't be able to answer very many of my questions, though, as to do this would put their heads in a noose, which is what I want.
I have some ideas, but they most likely won't get me the face-to-face I am looking for. Any ideas, short of having to lie to get in there, would be very appreciated.
JWR
Well, I'm not too sure what to think about this. On saturday I got another letter from the appeals office. It seems to be another form letter. It starts out saying they acknowleged receiving my case for consideration.
Then it says “In this letter we will explain who we are, what we do, how we do it, who you can talk to, and what you can expect.” Then it just elaborates a bit on each one of those points. Also enclosed was Publication 4165, Appeals, An Introduction to Collection Due Process Hearings.
What is interesting is that the envelope has the Chicago address, but the letter inside has the Peoria address. And it just says to contact the same @$$h*!# that handled the CDPH from last year.
What I am wondering now is should I wait to see if they contact me again, or call this jerk and find out what is going on.
Well there is a storm here, I need to get off this thing in case there is a surge and I ruin my system. No surge protector on my notebook 🙁 .
JWR
Hi Fiddo,
Thanks for posting that, it actually explains a bit to me. Must be why they don't want to deal directly with me, face-to-face. I must be one of those darn “frivo1ous non-filers” that was mentioned in Larken's e-mail. Also must be why they won't send me a copy of the SFR they done. Even though I filed for '00 using the “Schiff method” they went ahead and refiled for me. Wasn't that nice of them?
JWR
I figure they probably will embed one in all new-born children in the near future just like I hear they take DNA samples. (I can't remember where I saw this)
When I heard they were going to put them in animals quite a few years back I knew it was just a precurser to humans. I also knew it would be used to track us at all times.
Although I saw this linked on the msn home page, you can find a lot of stuff on the new world order on Alex Jones site, infowars.com.
I can assure you that the only way I will “get chipped” is as a corpse. And if they force it in me, it will be removed.
JWR
This is what I figured also. Just as soon as possible I am going to get my IMF decoded and rebutted using the IMF Decoder Pro version 1.82 from SEDM. I plan to order it on friday and hope it gets here real fast as I would also like to use it at the CDPH I have in the very near future.
I have decoded it before several times , and know most of the codes on it and what they mean. I just need to rebut it and get it corrected.
I am real curious as to what I do to earn “income” also. If I follow what Richard Standring has talked about I have a pistol/revolver manufacturing business somewhere, most likely in Puerto Rico. Cool, huh? That comes from the activity code from the AMDISA file.
I always wanted my own gun shop, I just wish it could have been a bit closer 😆 .
JWR
Woops! I didn't realize Monday was a government recognized holiday. I guess Tuesday doesn't sound that bad. Thanks again Bing!
JWR
HI Bing,
First off I want to say I am glad you aren't giving legal advice as I won't accept legal advice from anyone but a licensed attorney 😀 . (I don't trust lawyers anyway)
Rest assured I will not accept a phone hearing ever again. Been there, done that. Big mistake. It is imposible to document things that way. Plus I don't want them to feel too comfortable being at a safe distance.
I have a two day weekend which will give me more than enough time to type these up and get them in the mail on monday.
Should one, hypothetically of course, attach exhibits, such as a copy of the Supreme Court opinions or code sections that are used, with these letters? Or just allow them to look up the quotes on their own?
JWR
🙂 Hi Bing,
Good to hear from you again. It had seemed to get a bit quiet around here for a while.
I know it may or may not be too smart to get a CDPH but I can't seem to get a response out of these idiots no matter what I do and I would like to get some answers to some of these questions I have. Writing them doesn't get me anything but more collection letters.
I also know they don't have jurisdiction but are proceeding as if they do. These are things I need to get cleared up and would like to 'personally' ask them. I definately intend to get answers BEFORE I respond to any of their questions. The only thing they want to know anyway is how you are going to pay(It is a COLLECTION due process hearing, right?).
Every meeting I have heard on the net (here on Family Guardian, showmethelaw.net, and elsewhere) they have NEVER answer valid questions, just threaten, get verbally abusive, in one case physically violent, and storm out of the room.
These typical agent reactions might provide short term amusement for me, but the outcome may be the same as last time, the theft of 'money' for the IRS by my 'employer'.
I fully expect to be un-employed in a few months when I sue my employer for this and am fired. But that's ok. I don't want it to get this far, but short of quitting and finding another place to earn a living this seems to be the present course.
Although I have already sent that letter, do you think I should still prepare and send them some statements of fact/questions including US Supreme Court Cites as authority and demand a response/rebuttal by a certain date? This phone deal they set up is supposed to happen on the 26th of this month and then, as you probably know, they will make their 'determination' which will, of course be in their favor. Next step after that should be the Notice of Levy.
If I am going to do this, I'll have to get to it immediately. I don't expect a reply from them, though, as to do this would expose the fraud they are doing and show they don't have authority or jurisdiction. I guess this is why they use threats and violence to answer our questions.
JWR
Just want to see some feedback on this letter to this yahoo that I've been working on. Of course the names and so forth have been changed to protect the guilty (hopefully that's not me 😀 ). I found some stuff on another website that has helped out a bit on this which saved a lot of time. I have verified the code sections through cornell.edu
*******************************************************************
Dear MR. IRS WEASEL,
This is in response to your letter dated September 23, 2004 (attached). I do not wish to have a telephone conference nor do I wish to discuss this matter via correspondence since all of my correspondence over the years pertaining to this matter have gone unanswered.
What I am requesting is a face-to-face meeting as prescribed by law. Section 6330(b )(1) states:
TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 64 > Subchapter D > PART I > ? 6330
? 6330. Notice and opportunity for hearing before levy
(b ) Right to fair hearing
(1) In general If the person requests a hearing under subsection (a)(3)(B ), such hearing shall be held by the Internal Revenue Service Office of Appeals.
Nowhere in section 6330 is there a provision for a telephone conference or discussion via the U.S. mail. It is very clear that “such hearing shall be held by the Internal Revenue Service Office of Appeals” means just that. So I will reiterate my demand for a right to a fair hearing as prescribed by law.
In your letter you state: “Appeals does not provide a face-to-face conference if the only items you wish to discuss are those mentioned above.” Since no specific items are mentioned I cannot ascertain exactly what items you deem as frivo1ous. Nowhere in my CDP request do I recall ever mentioning any, moral, religious, constitutional, or conscientious, grounds. What I have mentioned were, without specificity, are six items that possibly show improper exam and collection activities. I intend to ask you to present at the hearing verification from the Secretary that the requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure have been met as stated in Section 6330©(1). Is this a frivo1ous item?
? 6330© Matters considered at hearing
In the case of any hearing conducted under this section?
(1) Requirement of investigation
The appeals officer shall at the hearing obtain verification from the Secretary that the requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure have been met.
I also ask to see the documentation of the approval of penalties, which have been assessed against me, as required by section 6751(b )(1). Is this a frivo1ous item?
? 6751. Procedural requirements
(b ) Approval of assessment
(1) In general
No penalty under this title shall be assessed unless the initial determination of such assessment is personally approved (in writing) by the immediate supervisor of the individual making such determination or such higher level official as the Secretary may designate.
The fact is that the only items that I mention in my CDP request are documents and procedures which are outlined in the Internal Revenue Code and the Internal Revenue Manual.
At the hearing, which for the second time I am requesting, I intend to raise any relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax or the proposed levy, including -challenges to the appropriateness of collection actions; and offers of collection alternatives as set forth in Section 6330©(2).
(2) Issues at hearing
(A) In general
The person may raise at the hearing any relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax or the proposed levy, including?
(i) appropriate spousal defenses;
(ii) challenges to the appropriateness of collection actions; and
(iii) offers of collection alternatives, which may include the posting of a bond, the substitution of other assets, an installment agreement, or an offer-in-compromise.
In addition, Section 6330(b )(3)states:
(3) Impartial officer
The hearing under this subsection shall be conducted by an officer or employee who has had no prior involvement with respect to the unpaid tax specified in subsection (a)(3)(A) before the first hearing under this section or section 6320. A taxpayer may waive the requirement of this paragraph.
I do not waive the requirement of this paragraph.
Considering your letter which contends that items I have brought up in my CDP Hearing request are incorrect, even though not one specific item is actually mentioned, and the fact that I have had no hearing on this matter to date, I can only conclude that you are not impartial and have already made up your mind concerning this matter.
This being the case, I am requesting that you remove yourself from this case and turn it over to another appeals officer who has no involvement whatsoever with this case as stipulated above in section 6630(b )(3)
Please have the new appeals officer contact me in writing with the time and place where we can meet for my CDPH as set forth in sections 6320 and 6330 of the Internal Revenue Code.
I am also giving you notice that I will be recording our meeting and at least one witness will be present.
Sincerely,
__________________________________________
JWR, All Rights Reserved
******************************************************************
I was just wondering if I should add or remove anything that may or may not be relevant as I'm kind of new to writing my own response letters. Any feedback, positive or negative, would be appreciated. Going to try to have it completed and in the mail by Monday to fall within his deadline.
JWR
Hi Toto75,
I have heard this rumor going around on the web for a while, but most think it is just that, a rumor. As far as the “Flat Tax”, the “Value Added Tax”, and these sort of things, I don't think they could get away with it in a Constitutional sense. And it is speculated that if they did institute another tax like these, it would be in addition to the income tax. I haven't heard much on it lately, though.
And I can't speak for others, but I am usually lurking out here somewhere. I am always checking to see if anyone is out here and for new posts. Last night, though, I did take a break from my computer, I need one once in a while. Oh, and monday I did go to Merimac Caverns in Missouri which was kind of neat, so I wasn't here till kind of late.
JWR
Fiddo,
I'm glad you cleared that up for me. I was worried after all the study you said you have done that you would just accept any info as fact if it came from more than one website. I have come across a site here and there that were so similar they appeared to be identical! Some just have the same material that seemed to be copied from the other. This seems to be the best source of info out there, and it doesn't appear to be copied from elsewhere. Thanks.
Author #2,
I agree with Toto75, WOW. Thanks for the detailed info on what's been going on in your situation.
It is unfortunate that it is so costly to speak the truth. I can only see what they are doing to you as evil. Lately I have been trying to understand the reasoning as to why they do what they do, and how they could make so many lives a living (censored), seemingly without a conscience. When I was at the Sherry Jackson seminar in Iowa, she had mentioned the reason IRS agents, after learning the truth, continue to perpetuate the fraud is because they make so much money doing what they do and don't want to lose their eighty thousand dollar a year job. They even seem to have the judges in their back pocket (or under their thumb).
I don't know, maybe it's just me. I couldn't do it. I try to put myself in their position to understand their way of thinking and just get more and more confused. It's just wrong.
I hope the best for Hansen, and there are a lot of us out here that are willing to back him up if need be. Stay strong and keep the faith.
JWR
Hi Guys'
I think this website has it a bit incorrect. Like I say, always verify the sources that you find on the web.
Quote from Toto75:
Quote:Asking the “expert” to tell you what MF-STAT 01 means (this scenario assumes you have an MF-STAT 01 on your IMF)……So, you “help” the “expert” by “guiding” them to Section 8 where you'll find that MF-STAT 01 indicates Not Required to File a Return.Quote from the website indicated:
Quote:Asking the “expert” to tell you what MF-STAT 06 means (this scenario assumes you have an MF-STAT 06 on your IMF)……So, you“help” the “expert” by “guiding” them to Section 8 where you'll find that MF-STAT 06 indicates Not Required to File a Return.
First off, and somebody correct me if I am wrong, MF-STAT is short for Master File Status Code and usually are the codes at the very end of the Master File.
What I believe to be the proper code that should have been referenced here are the Filing Requirement Codes in section 8.5 page 8-74 of the '03 version of the 6209 Manual. The MFR code, by the context in which it used (“MF-STAT 06 indicates “Not Required to File a Return” from the refenced site), is trying to get them to say you are not required to file a return, but in actuality the MFR 06 is the 1040SS. The MFR 01 means 1040 not required. (I myself have an MFR05 wich is the 1040 Business (SchA,B,D,E,C,F) and to think, I didn't even know I had a business! 😀 )
I have not had any experience using this document, a decoded IMF, in court yet, and hope I never have to. It will show, on many peoples IMFs, the fraud that has been done, and is a definite “paper trail” that can be exposed.
I hope this cleans things up a bit for you.
JWR
Sorry about that Author #2, I have been trying to get this post up for a little while but have been interupted quite a few times, and when I finally found the time I just didn't log in. It won't happen again. That is odd though that it came from Kansas. And though I don't really live in St. Louis, I am pretty darn close. I do earn my living over there though. But that post above really was from me.
And even though it was unintentional on my part, good looking out, shows you are paying attention.
JWR
P.S. I sure do wish I was traveling. I sure could use a break once in a while 🙂 .
Author #2,
You are welcome. But, I have to say that I don't see myself as having courage for doing the right thing. I fell down, now I'm trying to pick myself up again. I have always been one to stand up for my rights, even when I thought I knew what they were (but really didn't). I used to think we all had “Constitutional Rights” but never thought through the fact that our rights never derived from this document. Our rights are derived from our Creator. The Bill of Rights were written as restraint on government, lines that were not to be crossed. It was written for them, not us.
If there is anyone here that has courage I would have to say it is you, Author #2. You are the one that not only stood up to these crooks, but are educating all of us along the way (and hopefully a few of them, too). With this I say Thanks.
If you don't know what your rights are, you don't have any. But there is also a difference between knowing your rights and applying your rights. I think this is where a person's courage comes in to play.
Fiddo,
I must say that you have more spine than I do. I seem to have been dropped into my position by accident, not by design. But now that I am where I am, there is no turning back. Like I tell everyone, get educated FIRST, then make your decision. You need a stable foundation for this fight. We are not dealing with honest people here. And although I try to use what the law says, the law doesn't seem to matter with them.
It is good that you have done your homework first, though. I believe this to be key in this fight.
Quote:If you read the same material and references from several different sites, since they can't all be wrong a person must presume that what is read (if understood and in plain english) to be true if it is all saying the same thing.Don't EVER presume anything. ALWAYS verify the facts first. And when dealing with the IRS you must be VERY careful what you say. You may be using “plain english” but they will be using words that have several different definitions (words of art) such as United States, includes, residence, employee, employer just to name a few. As thoroughly researched as Family Guardian is, I even verify this information for myself. That is why I keep coming back 🙂
You are completely correct when you say “It might turn your world upside down,” it has mine. Once you take that red pill it changes everything, for both good and bad. I wouldn't change it for the world, though.
I must congratulate you on that first initial step, it's the hardest one to take. There aren't too many people out there wanting to hear the truth, let alone walk down its' path.
JWR
Hi Toto75,
I recieved two of these a while back, I think it was in May, one for '99 and and one for '00. About a month after that I got a couple of CP504's, one for each of those same years. Then in July I got a LTR1058, but oddly it was only for the year '00 and not '99. With the LTR1058 they supplied a Request for Due Process Hearing form, which I put aside, and instead used the one on Family Guardian which has been altered to remove the “taxpayer” presumptions. I am still waiting on that one.
I used the response letters from sedm.org, which are really quite good I might add. And as can be expected I haven't recieved a response except the next piece of hate mail from them.
I am going to assume that the reason you recieved this letter from the Holtsville, NY address is that it is the service center for your location which did the “audit” for you. And think about it, would you sign your name to something that could get you sued, or worse, put in prison? That is probably why they won't sign any of it either.
I just looked at mine and it is from the Kansas City Service Center (in Missouri) which claims to cover the area I live in (I say claims because I do not live or work in a federal zone).
This is just what has happened to me. Someone else may have had things work out differently.
The only advice I can give to anyone in these matters is to get educated FIRST, then decide what you want to do. I, unfortunately, followed bad “advice” and got in way too deep before extracting my head from my nether region. Now I'm trying to play catch up.
And as a side note, I prefer to call them the Infernal Robbery Squad. Kind of a hint at where I think they came from. 😀
JWR
