lchesson
Forum Replies Created
I'd rather get struck by lightning than ever file another 'form' with these criminals.
These people continue to believe they are accountable to none.
http://trac.syr.edu/tracirs/findings/natio…taxprosgph.html
Quote:About DataIRS Criminal Enforcement Data Systems
The information provided the public by the Internal Revenue Service about the agency's criminal enforcement activities are substantially inaccurate. Taken as a whole, the data provide a highly misleading picture of the enforcement efforts of one of the IRS's most important components, the Office of Criminal Investigation.
Because these data cannot be relied upon to describe IRS's criminal enforcement efforts, we have not used them for our Web sites.
The counts on IRS criminal enforcement activities published for many years by the agency in its annual publication — the Internal Revenue Service Data Book — are significantly different than those produced by two independent agencies which track the same events: the United States Justice Department and the United States Courts. In addition, the IRS data are internally inconsistent. Coverage shifts as cases move through the system, resulting in an erroneous picture of the flow of workload from IRS investigators to federal prosecutors and then to the federal courts and final sentencing.
These problems are of a long standing nature. For example, similar problem were found and documented in a 1978 study by the National Academy of Public Administration (Report by a Panel of the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), Planning and Analysis Concerning the Intelligence Function of the Internal Revenue Service). A second 1980 study commissioned by the government and authored by one of TRAC's co-directors also turned up serious problems of data quality and reliability (see “Criminal Enforcement Actions: Information Systems and Detailed Statistics,” pp. 149-179 (Chapter 6) in the monograph: The Internal Revenue Service: Measuring Tax Offenses and Enforcement Response, by Susan B. Long, U.S. Government Printing Office: September 1980 (National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice)).
According to those reports and TRAC's recent study, serious problems in IRS criminal record keeping systems are of at least three types:
Cases Disappear. Cases simply vanish from the system without explanation. Cases, recorded by the IRS at one point in the process from investigation to prosecution and sentencing are not consistently recorded and tracked.
Counts Don't Match Other Independent Data Systems. A second problem is that the counts of the Office of Criminal Investigation don't match other independent data systems — both those within the agency and those outside the agency. In general other data systems (for example, IRS Chief Counsel's Office and the Justice Department's U.S. Attorney databases) record receiving many more cases from IRS Criminal Investigation than the IRS reports it referred to them.
Information Recorded on Cases Doesn't Agree with Other Data Systems. Third, even when the same case is recorded in IRS Criminal Investigation databases and other independent data systems, the information recorded about these cases differed. For example,in the NAPA study, the size of the tax deficiency recorded by IRS Criminal Investigation was three times larger than that recorded by the IRS Examination Division on the cases selected for study. Declination rates (the proportion of matters the prosecutors refuse to handle) recorded in the IRS system were only half that recorded by federal prosecutors on IRS criminal referrals in the government's 1980 published study. The IRS's criminal data claimed that a much higher percent of individuals were sentenced to prison than did the U.S. Office of the Courts. As a result of these failings, IRS criminal enforcement data cannot be relied upon and therefore do not meet minimal standards for acceptable government data quality ((see Judging the Quality of Government Data).
TRAC's current investigation — extending for more than a year — shows these identical problems have continued to plague IRS's Criminal Investigation tracking system. If anything, they appear to have grown worse over time.
TRAC has made repeated efforts to get IRS's response to these discrepancies. We have also asked IRS to provide TRAC with more detailed information about how their data system is maintained, about any studies they have conducted on data discrepancies across systems, and for the actual referral-by-referral data. Up until now, these efforts have not met with any success. (For a description of these contacts, see attachments.)
Last year we furnished the Internal Revenue Service with findings from our study (see December 31, 1996 letter). In contrast with TRAC's findings with respect to IRS's data systems, it found that the record systems of the Executive Office of United States Attorneys and those of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts produce closely parallel counts. (See, for example, Federal Tax Prosecutions, Federal Drug Prosecutions, ATF Weapons Investigations and Prosecutions Peak). However, court and federal prosecutor data differ substantially from the information IRS publishes on federal criminal enforcement. Significant differences were found not only in the counts, but in the general patterns of prosecution, conviction and prison sentencing rates, as well as in recorded trends overtime.
TRAC's study covered the period of 1981 through 1995. Similar to the findings in the 1980 study, it found that in every year the IRS recorded sending to federal prosecutors fewer criminal referrals than the prosecutors say they received. Once the matter reached court, however, especially in recent years, the IRS has claimed credit for more work than the prosecutors said they achieved. In 1995, for example, the IRS data claims almost 50% more prosecutions than the Justice Department, and over twice the numbers of individuals sentenced to prison. IRS also recorded the completion of two times more tax prosecutions than the U.S. courts said the courts had handled from all federal investigative agencies. (The IRS is not the only agency that refers tax cases.) The discrepancies between the data from the IRS and that data from the prosecutors and the courts have grown steadily more serious during the last decade.
Prison sentences appear to be even more inflated in IRS tracking system than prosecutions. In 1995 IRS says that its Criminal Investigation Program sent 2,229 individuals to prison. During the same period federal prosecutors reported that IRS referrals resulted in 947 individuals being sentenced to prison terms. Focusing only on criminal prosecutions where tax fraud was the lead charge, IRS systems recorded 733 of these had a tax offense (Title 26) as the lead charge. The federal courts and federal prosecutors each recorded less than half that number (337 and 318, respectively) as sentenced to prison from all sources for tax fraud.
In addition, IRS has withheld the information that TRAC requested which might allow TRAC to carry out a systematic referral-by-referral examination of these discrepancies. Finally, IRS has taken a very insular stance stating that it was satisfied with its data and saw no need to compare it with other sources to check its reliability — this despite studies spanning a twenty year period finding this IRS data system seriously flawed.
Well, surprise, surprise. Emphasis added for my amusement.
- Quote:Ahhh, call it a hunch, but my sense is that this latest move by the corrupt DOJ, likely is gonna back fire on the DOJ, as some earnest American Citizens with lots of energy and detailed knowledge of certain fields, who are brave and courageous, and who are ready to, uhhh, ahem, get serious, and do battle, take the initiative and step up to the plate, so to speak. Accountability will be the rule of the day and some folks with high energy levels, may seek to hold others accounatble for their actions.
Bing, at first I thought you were referencing the sudden demise of the Immigration Bill, but your hunch may still be right on. <_<
I especially like this part..
Quote:The truth is out there and it's not going away.http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDAT…e2007-07-19.htm
Quote:July 19, 2007Withholding On The Ropes?
U.S. Unable To Prove It?s Not Voluntary
The United States appears to have bitten off more than it can chew when it sued Bob Schulz and the We The People organizations earlier this year in an effort to shut down “Operation Stop Withholding.”
In the lawsuit, the Government accused WTP of operating an unlawful “abusive tax shelter” in violation of IRC Sections 6700 and 6701, citing the organization's efforts to urge individuals to terminate their W-4 wage and salary withholding agreements.
In response to the lawsuit served on Schulz on May 3, 2007, Schulz filed a motion to have the case dismissed on the ground that Operation Stop Withholding is not only fully protected by the First Amendment (including the Petition clause), it is protected because We The People organization is educating People about the withholding laws as they are currently written and which expressly provide that such agreements are voluntary.Â
The Government's lawsuit has asked the District Court to issue an injunction prohibiting WTP?s efforts to educate Americans about the legal termination of private withholding agreements. WTP's efforts rely on “black letter” law which clearly establishes that Withholding Agreements (W-4s) are voluntary and that a worker can — at any time — terminate his W-4 by simply notifying the company that he no longer gives his permission to the company to withhold from his pay.
The Government finds itself in a very tough spot.
On one hand, it is asking the Court to shut the WTP program down, but on the other hand, neither the IRS nor the attorneys at the Department of Justice have been able to dispute or refute the simple truth that the law itself plainly establishes that withholding is voluntary and permission to withhold can be easily withdrawn by workers at their sole discretion.Â
What follows are a just a few of the legal citations that the Government has been confronted with and has failed to rebut:
 26 CFR ? 31.3402 (p)-1 “Voluntary Withholding Agreements”. (a) An employee who desires to enter into an agreement for withholding…..shall furnish his employer with Form W -4 (or equivalent) for withholding.
Read it for yourself.Â
 Â
 Pursuant to 26 CFR ? 31.3402(p)-1(:cool:(2), either a company or a worker may terminate the withholding agreement (or its equivalent) at any time, by furnishing a signed, written notice to the other. Read it for yourself.
 Â
 Pursuant to 26 USC ? 3402(p)(3)(A), 5 USC ?5517 and 31 CFR ?215.2(n)(1), all ordinary American workers have the right to refuse to consent to enter into a voluntary withholding agreement and can voluntarily refuse to have amounts taken from his/her pay for federal and/or state taxes, social security, other governmental insurance programs or welfare programs.
 Â
 ?Protected Individuals? as per 8 USC ?1324a cannot be compelled to submit any specific government documents or to disclose a social security number as a condition of being hired by or maintaining their status as a worker. Most American workers qualify as “Protected Individuals” under the law.
 Â
 The landmark decision of EEOC v. Information Systems Consulting CA3-92-0169T U.S.D.C. Northern District of Texas Dallas Division, held that companies cannot discriminate against applicants or workers for failure to obtain or disclose a social security number.
 Â
 No law requires a worker to file a Form W-4 (or its equivalent). In U.S. v. Mobil Oil Co., 82-1 USTC para. 9242, U.S.D.C. ND Tex. Dallas 1981 CA. 3-80-0438-G, the court ruled that an Entity does not even have to send a W-4 Form or other employment forms to the Internal Revenue Service unless served with a judicial court-ordered summons to do so.
 Â
 Pursuant to IRC ?6041©, a worker is only required to furnish a name and address upon demand of a company for whom he seeks to work. No social security number is required by statute.
Building upon a plethora of false statements, pitiful hyperbole, factual omissions and defective (and vindictive) claims of lawful authority, the Government has attempted to paint WTP as a “promoter” of an illegal tax fraud “scheme” without ever specifically identifying any false speech made by WTP, and without addressing the very laws WTP has relied upon — and which irrefutably establish that wage and salary withholding is voluntary.Â
Nowhere in its pleadings does the Government directly confront the voluntary nature of the withholding laws cited by WTP even though withholding is the central issue before the court.
Indeed, beyond the compelling judicial and constitutional drama unfolding as the landmark Right to Petition lawsuit continues its certain path to the Supreme Court, the Government may have done itself great harm by pursing a “6700” lawsuit against WTP.
As a result of accusing WTP of activity expressly protected by the Constitution and the lesser laws of the nation, it has risked widespread exposure in the public domain of the very information it seeks to censor.
It is no miracle that the United States cannot — by any law — force average workers to submit to mandatory withholding. To do so would be to require them to withhold monies for taxes, which by the Constitution and U.S. law, CANNOT BE IMPOSED UPON ORDINARY AMERICANS.
The fact that one's signature is required to execute a W-4 withholding agreement is simple evidence of this truth that, until recently, has remained well-obscured within the complexity of the tax code.Â
It is beyond time that our government confront a difficult political question that our organization has asked repeatedly over numerous years:Â
Do our elected leaders and guardians of the Rule of Law move with deliberation toward an orderly transition of a replacement for our Constitutionally-abusive tax system, or do they risk a chaotic, systemic collapse of the government funding mechanism (or even worse) because of the growing, yet unstoppable, awakening of the public consciousness regarding the truth about our nation's tax laws?
It is indeed not ironic that such a possibility awaits our nation, and may one day come to pass, inadvertently perhaps, because of one IRS prosecution too many.
The truth is out there and it's not going away.
History of the “6700” Lawsuit:
The United States served its Complaint on May 3, 2007, charging Schulz with promoting an abusive tax shelter in violation of Section 6700 of the Internal Revenue Code.
On May 23rd, Schulz and WTP filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted under 6700 and under the First Amendment?s Petition for Redress and Free Speech clauses. Also filed were three Declarations by Schulz.Â
On June 18th, the United States filed its Response and its Statement of Material Facts.
On July 16th, Schulz and WTP filed their Reply, including six more Declarations by Schulz.
For those not familiar with WTP?s Operation Stop Withholding here are the highlights:
On March 15, 2003, by letter, Schulz Petitioned the Government for a Redress of Grievances relating to the forced withholding and diversion of workers? pay. The theme of the Petition for Redress was the black letter law showing that withholding was voluntary, that any worker could legally terminate an existing withholding certificate (W-4) by simply notifying the company, in writing, that the worker did not want to continue having his pay withheld, and that a worker did not have to provide the company with a Social Security number.
Enclosed with Schulz?s March 15, 2003 letter was a Blue Folder with documentation supporting the Petition for Redress, and Forms for workers to use to legally terminate withholding.
In the March 15 letter, Schulz notified the United States that he would begin to instruct workers on how to legally terminate withholding unless the United States were to tell him his interpretation of the law was wrong.
Hearing no objection, Schulz embarked on his schedule of 37 meetings around the country, handing out 3500 copies of the Blue Folders (at no cost) to people in attendance at those meetings. The materials comprising the Operation Stop Withholding “Blue Folder” are still available (for free) on the WTP website.
The day before he left on his trip, the IRS sent Schulz a letter saying, in effect, ?We have reviewed certain materials and have decided to investigate you for promoting an abusive tax shelter, in violation of Section 6700 of the Internal Revenue Code. You are asked to meet with us and to bring your books and records.?Â
Thus, under color of an ?official? 6700 investigation of Schulz and the WTP organization, the IRS could now get away with almost anything, including harassing Schulz and the organization to death, or at least to the point where we could not continue with our process of Petitioning the Government for Redress of Grievances relating to withholding or anything else.
Schulz told the IRS, in effect, ?No answers, No records.? The IRS then served a Summons on Schulz for the books and records. Schulz sued the IRS. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in Schulz I, that Schulz did not have to respond to the Summons without a court order and if the IRS wanted the information it would have to bring Schulz to court to get it.
The IRS and DOJ then filed a subsequent motion asking the U.S.Court of Appeals to modify its decision claiming it would make it harder for the Government to collect taxes. In Schulz II, the Court sternly denied the motion again holding that taxpayers enjoy the protection of broad Due Process Rights with regard to all forms of IRS administrative actions.
Within weeks of the decision in Schulz II, the IRS began serving a series of third-party summonses against Schulz, rather than bring Schulz to Court to enforce the original Summons. Each third-party summons has resulted in a new lawsuit by Schulz against the IRS.Â
In November, 2006 the IRS felt the teeth of the Second Circuit Court of Appeal's decision in Schulz II when it served an administrative Summons on a New York bank demanding Schulz's personal bank records. Read our 11/8/06 web article.Â
After Schulz filed a lawsuit against the IRS to quash the Summons, on November 6th a federal judge issued an injunctive order enjoining and prohibiting the IRS from enforcing the bank Summons. During pre-trial pleadings, the primary investigator for the IRS was caught perjuring herself to the District Court regarding the alleged basis for issuing the Summons. This case is currently awaiting the disposition of that Court.Â
Immediately following the March 30, 2007 ?V? demonstration outside the White House (video) and its coverage by the Washington Post, the United States filed the “6700” civil injunction lawsuit against Schulz and the WTP organizations.
Grace/Peace
- Sonik Fury wrote on Oct 14 2006, 05:33 PM:I believe I was the cause to explode the issue off the original intent of this thread. It's just that I am a defender of truth and whenever I see non-truth uttered, my blood pressure sky rockets.? :ph34r:
Sorry guys and yes I agree: Bottom line is WTC got knocked down.
[post=”3214″][/post]Here's a great video to get back on track.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRNW6rWoMqs
Here's the deal – BBC was announcing at just after 5pm est that WTC-7 had collapsed. They have a correspondent on site with *live* footage, but as we know, #7 didn't , er, *fall* until 5:20 or so.
You can get a good view of the skyline behind the BBC reporter at about the 2 minute mark of the video. WTC-7 appears to be still standing. Now, watch at around the 7 minute mark, and you see a very similar skyline as WTC-7, um, *falls*.
As far as I have been able to tell, the building in the right portion of the screen, is in fact WTC-7. Now, for all you cynics out there, let me warn you that this phenomenon is easily explanable by the often occurance of news traveling so fast that it actually gets ahead of itself.
- Quote:I just got to see that interview. I'm going right now to try to find it. I will save that one too.
Here ya go:
http://www.911podcasts.com/files/video/Fet…mes20060622.wmv
911 Mysteries – Demolitions: Three Part Video
90 minutes of pure demolition evidence and analysis, laced with staggering witness testimonials. Moving from “the myth” through “the analysis” and into “the players,” careful deconstruction of the official story set right alongside clean, clear science. The 9/11 picture is not one of politics or nationalism or loyalty, but one of strict and simple physics. How do you get a 10-second 110-story pancake collapse? Not once, but TWICE? And WTC7, only the third high-rise to ever collapse because of fire (WTC1 & 2 were the first 2) ?
VERY carefully.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/Septe…Demolitions.htm
______________________________________________________________
Shanksville crash site….a Boeing 757 ????
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight93.html#AFP
______________________________________________________________
Also consider the following from:
http://palitonepress.blogspot.com/2006/06/…oincidence.html
“”It all began on the evening of June 22, 2006, when “Hannity & Colmes” (on the FOX/RNC Channel) had a guest on by the name of Dr. James H. Fetzer (see endnote). Fetzer is a member of 9/11 Scholars for Truth. Due to some unexpected initial confusion on the part of the hosts regarding their chosen “attack theme” (they got their “facts FOXED,” as Fetzer said), Fetzer was given a rare opportunity to answer an open-ended question — almost without interruption. As the lawyers all say, “Never ask a witness any question to which you do not already know the answer.”
Colmes asked Fetzer something to the effect, “So can you give us one piece of evidence that would tend to point toward 9/11 being an inside job by the Bush Administration?”
While Ollie North (who was guest hosting for Hannity) was apparently still lost in confusion, Fetzer had a rare opportunity to speak a few full sentences without hostile, obnoxious interruptions. He said (and I'm paraphrasing here again), “I point you to Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony before the 9/11 Commission. Mineta said he had encountered Vice President Cheney in a bunker in Washington, DC, at 9:20 AM, on the day of the attacks [forty-three minutes earlier than Cheney said he had arrived]. Every few seconds a young man would come into the room and say, 'Sir, it's 50 miles out. Sir, it's 40 miles out. Sir, it's 30 miles out,' and so on. Finally the young man asked the Vice President, 'Sir, do the orders still stand?' Cheney replied gruffly, 'Of course, the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?'
Fetzer went on to explain that only later did Mineta learn that the young man was referring to Flight 77 approaching Washington, DC, and the orders the young man was referring to were obviously orders NOT to shoot the plane down. That's why the young man had finally asked if the orders still stood, to which Cheney replied that they did. Shortly thereafter, Flight 77 (or a “reasonable” facsimile thereof) struck the Pentagon.
Obviously, the producers of the “Hannity & Colmes Propaganda Hour” had not anticipated such a damning bit of irrefutable evidence to escape over “their” airwaves to their glassy-eyed, drool-chinned audience.
Here's the Real Kicker…
The very next morning, less than twelve hours after his 9/11 testimony had been unexpectedly “exposed” to the FOX faithful, Norman Mineta resigned as Secretary of Transportation.
What an unbelievably amazing coincidence of timing! “”
_______________________________________________________
Don't miss the story about Cheney and his usurption of NORAD. Generals have always had the authority to issue shoot-down orders. In June of 2001, Cheney relieved them of that duty and claimed it for himself.
http://tyrannyalert.com/norad.mpg
_____________________________________________________________
I will suggest that those unwilling to even consider mountains of evidence contrary to the “official” story simply find it too appalling that any American could have played a role in orchestrating these events. Especially not a military government that is “here to help”. Some of us know better. And as Ollie North said, “How many were involved, 100?, 1000?”, hinting at the difficulty of keeping a lid on it. I also have a hard time understanding how lips could remain sealed, but time will tell.
Laws of Nature do not lie, and the Laws of Man are a snare.
Many thanks, Author # 2
Relevant passage for our friend and brother C. Hansen:
Romans 8:28-31
28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.
29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.
31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?
Amen and amen.
We The People Foundation has jumped on board this one. The Hon. Alberto R. Gonzales and IRS commissioner Mr. Mark Everson have been asked to respond to the WTP analysis of DOJ's actions.
http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTP2/UPDATES/…e2006-06-09.htm
- Quote:::: Sigh ::: Okay Okay! Here is the links yet again!
There are IRS MOLES among us. This was publically announced by Mr. Author #2. Fellow comrade, Bing deserves the credit regard the discredit of Lambskin.
CLICK HERE TO CHECK IT OUT
Sonik Speed, somehow I missed Author 2's post above and now the sqautlooser post link does not work. What was the connection?
Thanks for posting the links.
Quote:?The bottom line is that the IRS is the best secret-keeping agency in our government today. They are better than the CIA, better than the FBI. The American people do not have a clue about how the Service goes about doing its job, and that is just how the agency wants it.?And these quotes from IRS Revenue Agent Jennifer Long :
Quote:“I can personally attest to the use of egregious tactics used by IRS Revenue Agents which are encouraged by members of the IRS Management.”“Management will go about fabricating evidence..”
“IRS Management automatically assumes that everyone is a criminal. “
Sonik, although you could have used a different method to indicate Lambskin is a potential mole, I do appreciate you bringing it to light. The evidence weighs in your favor, which includes general contempt for IRS persons and agreement with their own employees … that they are immoral, liars and theives.
The irony is that IRS people will claim to be the victims when Judgement Day arrives. The answer for the un-repentant ones will be…”No Deal.”
- Quote:I'm trying to understand what goes on in the minds of people who feel that there is nothing wrong with joining organizations like the Klu Klux Klan or the American Nazi party or the Skin Heads or any group that has a history of violence against those it does not deem worthy of its' ideals and concepts. And so it is with the IRS.
Many IRS persons profess belief. Once the veil is lifted, it is indeed frustrating to wonder how they can continue to lead what appears to be a life's work in complete conflict with their belief. We need to understand that most organized churches bow first to Ceasar, throw in a few select verses from Romans as they chant IRS dogma, and will preach about being 'in the world' and not 'of the world'. I would guess the full measure of not being 'of the world' requires one's 'diligent' desire to know the truth about such matters.
Most of the truths about politics have been revealed to me only after a prayerful request that He would defeat the spirit of deceit. Generally speaking, most professing believers would have a very difficult time standing on their faith when it's time to get sawn in half or stoned to death, especially when they fail to realize who they are as a creation in His image.
The Lord shows mercy to whom he pleases. I'm not aware of how it will all play out, but one thing's for sure – God will not be mocked.
Quote:Albert Martin said:It seems that there is no limit to the rotten dity tricks they have up their sleeves.
An example of this is Mr. Apostle and Mr. Lambskin.
Sonik Speed
SS, cheap shot, me thinks. Lambskin was asked if he was an IRS person, and he denied it. What else do you have? I agree that IRS persons do not have credibility, but I missed the part where ALL persons with diminished credibility are presumed to work for them. Or does that rule apply to this forum only?
Bandwidth Limit Exceeded
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later.
Crazy “tax-protestors” are at it again… or again, maybe it's the 'infiltrators'…:lol:
AndyK wrote:
“It's not worth my time to expend any more effort here. I'm sure my supervisors won't mind if I concentrate on other sites where the participants don't all have blinders on.”
You are allowed to use whatever resources you can manage. Your supervisors are summoned to appear. You clearly need some help.
I have FOIA documents in my possession that were intentionally altered with pen and ink by someone at the disclosure office, under the ruse of 552 exemption. I used the physical evidence of the deed to determine with 100% accuracy that fraud was committed the instance their pen touched the paper. This was early in my education and discovery and from that moment forward I knew with no uncertainty that I was dealing with a terrorist organization. My cynicism and dis-trust for these people has been validated MANY times since.
It's one thing to watch your neighbor suffer, but another one entirely when the attack is personal.
The IRS mission to “provide America's taxpayers top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and by applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all ” is _________ (fill in the blank)
IRS Revenue Agent Jennifer Long made some statements that IMO are correct because they exactly parallel my own experience: To wit:
“I can personally attest to the use of egregious tactics used by IRS Revenue Agents which are encouraged by members of the IRS Management.”
“The IRS will often pursue a taxpayer who is viewed to be vulnerable. To the IRS, vulnerabilities can be based on a perception that the taxpayer has limited formal education, has suffered a personal tragedy, is having a financial crisis, or may not necessarily have a solid grasp of their legal rights.”
“..many agents are encouraged by management to pursue tax assessments that have no basis in tax law from individuals who simply can't fight back. However, if that taxpayer does object or complain, every effort will be made by the IRS to run up their tax assessment, deplete their financial resources and force them to capitulate to IRS demands.”
“many agents are encouraged by management to pursue tax assessments that have no basis in tax law from individuals who simply can't fight back. However, if that taxpayer does object or complain, every effort will be made by the IRS to run up their tax assessment, deplete their financial resources and force them to capitulate to IRS demands.”
“Management will go about fabricating evidence..”
“IRS Management has even employed its authority to intimidate the actual taxpayers into fabricating evidence against its own IRS employees. ” (they even eat their young)
“IRS Management automatically assumes that everyone is a criminal. “
And the worst for last:
“In other cases, IRS Management can determine that a particular taxpayer is simply someone “to get.” In other words, they become a target of the IRS.”
And finally, the solution:
“American taxpayers are not stupid.” (or non-taxpayers)
Her statements were made in 1997, yet could have been just as accurate if they were made yesterday.
AndyK, a competent witness is not one who spews forth IRS dogma. They will be questioned accordingly.
- Sonik Speed wrote on Apr 5 2006, 11:30 PM:Does anyone know if the IRS is hiring for any JOB vacancy? If so, then where can I get a job description and location information. I am actually willing to consider to work for the IRS. It sounds like an exciting opportunity to work for them. The pay is really good too. They can sure use a young guy like me.? 🙄
BTW – I AM NOT KIDDING!
Sonik Speed
[post=”2521″][/post]Well, I have to ask anyway – you're kidding, right? You would REALLY consider it? Can you REALLY support this desire in pursuit of excitement and a few FRN's? I mean, REALLY? What do you REALLY mean by the word 'actually'?
Sonik, your position is well researched and established, and I would agree with you 100% if I held the same position. Good job. However, I disagree in principle that current abuses by the IRS can be ignored in favor of allowing them access to any records – for any reason. In this case, the end does not justify the means. Time and again this agency proves that they may play by the rules when it serves their interest, while at other times ignoring and bastardizing the form of due process you describe.
IMO, a free people cannot co-exist with an unaccountable, illegitimate terrorist organization while being sanctioned as a valid member of a government body designed to serve and protect the interests of those people.
The IRS should not exist in their present form.
- Soteriologist wrote on Feb 15 2006, 08:10 PM:Yes, more pastors & clergy need to be made aware of the 501?(3) issue. I doubt seriously that many (especially those who have been in the ministry for a long time) would be inclined or led to act on it.
In addition to the material on famguardian.org, I recommend two other sources – Red Beckman's The Church Deceived, and this website, which I was just told about today by a brother in Christ – 501c3 Church Incorporate and Start a Church.
Years ago, there used to be an entity called something like “Unincorporated Churches of America”, but I don't know what ever happened to it. Also, a few years back, a prominent church in Indianapolis got hammered by the IRS, and I believe it may have been over this issue (perhaps it was trying to un-incorporate).
Anyone know anything more about the church in Indy, or the organization I'm speaking of?
[post=”2264″][/post]Your link has a typo.. Here it is… http://hushmoney.org/
Worthy of specific mention is the following:
In order to be considered for tax-exempt status by the IRS, an organization must fill out and submit IRS Form 1023 and 1024. However, note what the IRS says regarding churches and church ministries, in Publication 557:
Some organizations are not required to file Form 1023. These include:
Churches, interchurch organizations of local units of a church, conventions or associations of churches, or integrated auxiliaries of a church, such as a men?s or women?s organization, religious school, mission society, or youth group. These organizations are exempt automatically if they meet the requirements of section 501©(3).
And according to IRS Code ? 508©(1)(A):
Special rules with respect to section 501©(3) organizations.
(a) New organizations must notify secretary that they are applying for recognition of section 501©(3) status.
© Exceptions.
(1) Mandatory exceptions. Subsections (a) and (:cool: shall not apply to?
(A) churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches.
This is referred to as the “mandatory exception” rule. Thus, we see from the IRS? own publications, and the tax code, that it is completely unnecessary for any church to apply for tax-exempt status. In the IRS? own words a church ?is automatically tax-exempt.?
Peace to all.
