|
|
| IRS Violates
Citizens' Due Process Rights |
|
IRS’s daily operating practices routinely, and by design,
deny the average citizen due process of law to perpetuate
the unlawful collection of income taxes. A tax system
that violates the basic protection of due process is not constitutional.
Examples
- a. Admit that after IRS has audited a taxpayer,
and there is disagreement, the Code of Federal Regulations
requires IRS to take certain procedural steps to ensure
the TAXPAYER administrative level action for hearings
on those disagreements, including an examination of the
audit with the agent, followed by a meeting with the
IRS' agent's supervisor, followed by a 30-day letter
which sets out the IRS's disputed items with the TAXPAYER
and an administrative appeal of the IRS' decision on
the audit.
See 26 C.R.F.601.105 and 601.106
Exhbit 160a
- b. Admit that that the purpose of these administrative
steps is to afford the TAXPAYER an opportunity to have
his disputed audit resolved at the administrative level?
In other words, that these are pre-court or pre-litigation
steps, which are designed to help the People avoid the
expensive procedure known as Tax Court?
- c. Admit that if the dispute is not resolved at
the administrative level, the taxpayer is forced into
Tax Court.
- d. Admit that IRS Publication 1, IRS Publication
5 and IRS Publication 556, are all given to the taxpayer
during the audit through appeals procedure and that these
publications state that these administrative, procedural
(due process) steps are available to the TAXPAYER.
See IRS Publication 1, IRS Publication 5 and IRS
Publication 556
Exhibit 160a,160b,160c
- e. Admit that when the People request these administrative,
procedural (due process) steps, they are almost always
denied.
- f. Admit that Tax Court is an extremely expensive
remedy for the individual TAXPAYER.
- g. Admit that the IRS is the only party that benefits
as taxpayers are forced into Tax Court.
- h. Admit that the Tax Court, in Minahan v Commissioner
88 T.C. 492, ruled that the taxpayer must demand his
procedural, due process rights or any right he might
ever have to obtain attorney fees in a favorable outcome
of his case is automatically in jeopardy.
See Minahan v Commissioner 88 T.C. 492
Exhibit 160d
- i. Admit that the Reform and Restructuring Act
of 1998 requires the TAXPAYER to go through these administrative,
procedural (due process) steps in order to prove his
"cooperativeness" with IRS, and to shift the burden of
proof to the IRS during the administrative hearing and
at trial.
See Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, Section
3001
See also 26 USC Section 7491
Exhibit. 160e, 160f
- j. Admit that the IRS routinely ignores the Peoples'
demands for their procedural, due process, statutory
rights, ignoring IRS publications 1, 5, and 556, the
regulations they are supposed to use in making their
determination and the underlying statutes.
More
Examples - IRS Agents Encouraged to Deny Due Process
- k. Admit that there is no penalty for the IRS agents
if they violate the income tax statutes by denying the
People their due process rights, but the statutes contain
a multitude of penalties for the People if they violate
the income tax statutes, and those penalties are almost
always imposed.
See Index of IRS Tax Code, Penalties
Exhibit 160g
- l. Admit that the IRS will often deny a person
his administrative, statutory, due process rights because
the statute of limitation (26 I.R.C. 6501 et. seq.) is
running out for them to get the statutory Notice of Deficiency
(26 I.R.C. 6212) out and they are in fear of losing the
whole year of taxation from that person.
See 26 I.R.C. 6501 et. seq.
See also 26 I.R.C. 6212
Exhibit 160h,160i
More
Examples - How to Fabricate a Notice of Deficiency
- m. Admit that the IRS races to issue a STATUTORY
NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY, 26 I. R. C. 6212, rather than give
the People their due process rights to administrative
level resolution under C.F.R. 601.605, 601.606, because
the IRS has greater resources and power in TAX COURT.
- n. Admit that a Notice of Deficiency is, in most
cases, completely erroneous, and always greatly in favor
of the IRS.
- o. Admit that many people default on their Notice
of Deficiency because they don't have the money to get
to Tax Court.
- p. Admit that IRS often uses erroneous figures
for Income when they send out a Notice of Deficiency.
- q. Admit that there are other ways that the IRS
uses figures that it knows are false on its Notice of
Deficiencies under 26 I.R.C. 6212.
See 26 I.R.C 6212
Exhibit 160
- r. Admit that the result of this the fact is that
the TAXPAYER is often sent an entirely false Notice of
Deficiency.
- s. Admit that 26 I.R.C. 6211 is used to determine
how a deficiency is made and it does not allow for "0"
deductions when the TAXPAYER has claimed deductions.
See 26 I.R.C. 6211
Exhibit 159
- t. Admit that the Tax Court has, however, ruled
that the use of "0" line deduction in IRS issued Notices
of Deficiency is permissible, even if the taxpayer has
claimed deductions.
- u. Admit that the law (26 I.R.C. 6211 Definition
of Deficiency) does not permit the "bank deposit analysis"
method of determining gross income of a person.
See 26 I.R.C. 6211
Exhibit 159
- v. Admit that the IRS routinely issues Notices
of Deficiency that are based on assessments that the
IRS makes without following its own procedures and manuals.
- w. Admit that the issuance of a Notice of Deficiency
or "90 day Notice" letter is the triggering event and
a person so receiving such a letter must file his case
in Tax Court within 90 days or forever be held to
the often totally false liability assessed in the
grossly false Notice of Deficiency.
See 26 USC 2613
Exhibit 160j
- x. Admit that this is why the administrative, statutory
due process steps are so important.
- y. Admit that the federal district court has refused
to reach the merits of a claim that Tax Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction in those cases where the IRS has
issued Notices of Deficiency after denying the taxpayers
their administrative, statutory due process rights.
- z. Admit that the IRS Handbook for Examination
of Returns reads in part, "Examiners are responsible
for determining the correct tax liability as prescribed
by the Internal Revenue Code. It is imperative that examiners
can identify the applicable law, correctly interpret
its meaning in light of congressional intent, and, in
a fair and impartial manner, correctly apply the law
based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
See IRS' Handbook 4.2 Examination of Returns Handbook,
[4.2] 7.1
Exhibit 160k
Pro
Se Van FOIA their IMF-Say What???
The
Heart of the Fraud or Tax Court" Shamx Court
- aa. Admit that the IRS Handbook for Examination
of Returns also reads in part, " Conclusions reached
by examiners must reflect correct application of the
law, regulations, court cases, revenue rulings, etc.
Examiners must correctly determine the meaning of statutory
provisions and not adopt strained interpretation."
- bb. Admit that when a taxpayer requests what regulations
and statutes the examiner used in making his determination
of tax liability, the IRS refuses to cite the law.
- cc. Admit that without an assessment there can be
no liability.
- dd. Admit that the IRS disclosure officers are
making the assessments.
- ee. Admit that that there is no law in which a
disclosure officer is authorized to make an assessment.
- ff. Admit that an assessment made by a disclosure
officer is invalid as a matter of law.
- gg. Admit that that there are over 100 regulations
that apply to Form 1040 cross referenced by OMB #1545-0074,
and that the IRS refuses to identify which ones they
use in making determinations that a citizen is liable
to file a Form 1040 and is liable to pay the tax.
- hh. Admit that a lien arises at the time an assessment
is made.
See 26 USC 6322
Exhibit 160l
- ii. Admit that the evidence underlying the entries
on the Certificate of Assessments and Payments is relevant
to the issue of whether an assessment was made.
See Beall v US, Civil Action 89 C 6500 (N.D. Ill.
Eastern Div.), which relies upon Psaty v US, 442 F2d.
1154 (3rd. Cir. 1971), and US v Hart, 89-1 USTC para.
9255 (C D Ill, 1989)
Exhibit 160m
- jj. Admit that without an assessment there is no
liability.
See US v Nipper No. 00-5057 (D.C. No. 98-CV-526-K)(N.D. Okla.)
(10th. Cir. 2001)
Exhibit 160n
Note: On appeal the government failed to provide
any underlying evidence in support of its tax assessments
and the case was remanded back to the district court
for the government to prove its tax assessments.
- kk. Admit that the TAXPAYER is helpless as he tries
to exercise his statutory (due process) rights to secure
these lower level administrative remedies while attempting
to resolve his audit difference without going to Tax
Court.
- Admit that the tax imposed upon individuals required to
make a return under Section 6012(a) of the Internal Revenue
Code is imposed upon the individual’s “taxable income.”
See 26 U.S.C. § 6012(a)
Exhibit 020
- Admit that the Section 6020(b) requirement for the Secretary
to make the required Section 6012(a) return is to require
the Secretary to compute the taxpayers taxable income
so the correct amount of tax owed can be calculated.
See 26 U.S.C. §§ 6012(a) and 6020(b)
Exhibit 020, 161
- Admit that when an individual required to make a return
under Section 6012(a) of the Internal Revenue Code fails
to make the required return, and the Internal Revenue
Service issues a notice of deficiency, the amount of
tax claimed as due by the Secretary is not based upon
the taxable income, but is computed without regard to
the requirements of Sections 62 and 63 of the Internal
Revenue Code from which adjusted gross income and taxable
income are computed from gross income.
See 26 U.S.C. §§ 62, 63, and 6012(a)
Exhibit 162, 086, 020
- Admit that the IRS attempts to obtain assessments of more
tax than would otherwise be required by law as an unauthorized
additional penalty on those who are required to, but
do not, make federal income tax returns.
- Admit that the word “shall” as contained in Section 6001
of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a mandatory duty
on those to whom the statute applies to keep records,
render statements, make returns and to comply with rules
and regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury.
See 26 U.S.C. § 6001
Exhibit 007
- Admit that the word “shall” as contained in Section 6011
of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a mandatory duty
on those to whom the statute applies to make a return
or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed
by the Secretary of the Treasury.
See 26 U.S.C. § 6011
Exhibit 008
- Admit that the word “shall” as contained in Section 6012
of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a mandatory duty
on those to whom the statute applies to make returns.
See 26 U.S.C. § 6012
Exhibit 020
- Admit that the word “shall” as contained in Section 6020(b)
of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a mandatory duty
on those to whom the statute applies to make returns.
See 26 U.S.C. § 6020(b)
Exhibit 161
- Admit that Section 6020(b) of the Internal Revenue Code
states:
If any person fails to make any return required by an
internal revenue law or regulation made thereunder at
the time prescribed therefor, or makes, willfully or
otherwise, a false or fraudulent return, the Secretary
shall make such return from his own knowledge and from
such information as he can obtain through testimony or
otherwise.
See 26 U.S.C. § 6020(b)
Exhibit 161
- Admit that nowhere in the Internal Revenue Code has Congress
indicated that the word “shall” as used in Section 6020(b)
of the Internal Revenue Code has a different meaning
than as used in Sections 6001, 60011 and/or 6012 of the
Internal Revenue Code.
See Title 26, United States Code, in its entirety
- Admit that in the absence of a Congressionally declared
distinction for a word used in the same Code (here the
Internal Revenue Code), in the same subtitle (here Subtitle
F), in the same Chapter (here Chapter 61) and in the
same Subchapter (here subchapter A) to be given a different
meaning, the same word is to be given the same meaning.
(Common Knowledge)
- Admit that if an individual required to make a return
under Section 6012(a) of the Internal Revenue Code fails
to make the required return, the Secretary of the Treasury
does not make the return mandated by Section 6020(b)
of the Internal Revenue Code.
- Admit that the IRS computer system, the IDRS (Integrated
Data Retrieval Systems) was programmed to require a tax
return to be filed in order to create a tax module for
each taxable year.
(Testimony)
Dumb
and Dumber Returns
Get
the Money
The
People Reserve the Right to Revolt
- Admit that if an individual required to make and file
a return under Section 6012(a) fails to file such a return,
that the Secretary creates a “dummy return” showing zero
tax due and owing.
See Blair v. C.I.R., 57 T.C.M. (CCH) 1396 (1989);
Phillips v. C.I.R., 851 F.2d 1492 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Schiff
v. United States, 71A A.F.T.R.2d 9303271 (1989).
Exhibit 166, 167, 168
- Admit that this “dummy return” sets forth no financial
data from which the gross income, adjusted gross income
or taxable income can be computed.
See Blair v. C.I.R., 57 T.C.M. (CCH) 1396 (1989);
Phillips v. C.I.R., 851 F.2d 1492 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Schiff
v. United States, 71A A.F.T.R.2d 9303271 (1989).
Exhibit 166, 167, 168
Zero
Income - Makes Total Sense
- Admit that this “dummy return” is not signed.
See Blair v. C.I.R., 57 T.C.M. (CCH) 1396 (1989);
Phillips v. C.I.R., 851 F.2d 1492 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Schiff
v. United States, 71A A.F.T.R.2d 9303271 (1989).
Exhibit 166, 167, 168
- Admit that a “dummy return” is physically created on the
IRS Form 1040.
See Blair v. C.I.R., 57 T.C.M. (CCH) 1396 (1989);
Phillips v. C.I.R., 851 F.2d 1492 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Schiff
v. United States, 71A A.F.T.R.2d 9303271 (1989).
Exhibit 166, 167, 168
- Admit that Congress has not authorized the Internal Revenue
Code or Treasury Regulations that authorize the creation
of “dummy returns”.
See Title 26, United States Code, in its entirety
- Admit that if an individual required to make a return
under Section 6012(a) files a return that does not contain
the financial information necessary to allow the IRS
to compute gross income, adjusted gross income and/or
taxable income, the IRS calls such a return a “zero return.”
See Hopkins v. United States, 56 A.F.T.R.2d 85-5940
(1985); Nichols v. United States, 575 F. Supp.
320 (D.C. Minn 1983); Tornichio v. United States, 81
A.F.T.R.2d 98-1377 (1988).
Exhibits 169, 170, 171
- Admit that if an individual required to make a return
under Section 6012(a) files a return that does not contain
the financial information necessary to allow the IRS
to compute gross income, adjusted gross income and/or
taxable income, the IRS takes the position that no return
has been filed.
See Hopkins v. United States, 56 A.F.T.R.2d 85-5940
(1985); Nichols v. United States, 575 F. Supp.
320 (D.C. Minn 1983); Tornichio v. United States, 81
A.F.T.R.2d 98-1377 (1988).
Exhibits 169, 170, 171
- Admit that if an individual required to make a return
under Section 6012(a) files a return that does not contain
the financial information necessary to allow the IRS
to compute gross income, adjusted gross income and/or
taxable income, the IRS takes the position that the return
is “frivolous” and imposes a $500 penalty.
See Hopkins v. United States, 56 A.F.T.R.2d 85-5940
(1985); Nichols v. United States, 575 F. Supp.
320 (D.C. Minn 1983); Tornichio v. United States, 81
A.F.T.R.2d 98-1377 (1988).
Exhibits 169, 170, 171
- Admit that if an individual required to make a return
under Section 6012(a) files a return that does not contain
a signature made under penalty of perjury, the IRS takes
the position that no return has been filed.
See 26 U.S.C. § 6065). See Doll v. C.I.R.,
358 F.2d 713 (3rd Cir. 1966); Elliott v. C.I.R.,
113 T.C. 125 (1999); Richardson v. C.I.R., 72 T.C.
818 (1979).
Exhibits 175, 172, 173, 174
- Admit that if an individual required to make a return
under Section 6012(a) files a return that does not contain
a signature under penalties of perjury, the IRS takes
the position that the return is “frivolous” and imposes
a $500 penalty.
See Green v. United States, 593 F. Supp. 1341 (D.C.
Ind. 1984); McNally v. United States, 56 A.F.T.R.2d
85-5757 (1985).
Exhibits 176, 177
- Admit that an IMF record bearing the code “SFR 150” indicates
that a fully paid IRS Form 1040a was filed.
See LEM III 3(27)(68)0-34
Exhibit 178
|
