|
Originally Posted by Equinox
All one has to do is read section 3506 (1995) and see that the form 1040 does not comply with the PRA of 1995 in any respect listed therein. The Director is to "evaluate" fairly whether proposed collections of information should be approved under this chapter to-:
"ensure that each information collection-(1) is inventoried, displays a control number and, if appropriate, an expiration date; (2) indicate the collection is in accordance with the clearance requirements of section 3507; and (3) informs the person receiving the collection of information of - (I) the reasons the information is being collected; (II) the way such information is to be used; (III) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the burden of the collection; (IV) whether the responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain a benefit, or mandatory; and (V) the fact that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays avalid control number."
All one has to do is look at the purported "request" to see if any of these criteria are met. The form 1040 does not contain the warning required as appearing on all other forms. The warning the IRS does notice the public about appears in the instruction booklet and not on the form as required. Remember, the PRA of 1980 and 1995 only apply to the information collection request and not the "instruction booklets." The instruction booklet for form 1040 even denounces its affiliation with any tax forms ("this booklet does not contain any tax forms.")(if the instruction booklet is not a collection of information and is not subject to OMB approval, then how does the requirements intended to appear on the tax form become satisfied by appearing in the instruction booklet only?)(who approved that?)(are they going to now say the instruction booklet is subject to the PRA of 1995?)(then there is the question if the instruction booklet denounces containing any tax forms, how does the government and court argue the duty
was satisfied by what is contained within the instruction booklets?)
No expiration date that exists prior to its expiration, no indication the collection is in accordance with section 3507, no informing the person about the reasons the information is being collected; (II) the way such information is to be used; (III) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the burden of the collection; (IV) whether the responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain a benefit, or mandatory; and (V) the fact that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays avalid control number.
NOTHING WHATSOEVER ON FORM 1040 FOR ANY YEAR 1981 THROUGH 2006!.
There is also two additional considerations need to understand current knowledge of this issue. OMB says that 26 U.S.C. section 6011 is the statutory command and therefore, the IRS forms are exempt from the PRA of 1995. That section completely defies the entire reason for the 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th and 11th Circuits reasoning for the "statutory origin theory." Said theory was based upon the "expressed mandate of congress" vs. "promulgated via regulation" theory. Section 6011 says "when required by regulation proscribed by the Secretary......." The Commissioner in the instruction booklet also says 6001, 6011, 6012 and THEIR REGULATIONS."
In conclusion, the dictum division on the statutory mandate theory proves there is no such mandate. It also proves the form 1040 is promulgated via regulation and also proves "at the discretion of the agency" because the IRS completely ignores the requirements of the PRA of both 1980 and 1995. They could only do that if they were evading the PRA of 1995 (yes, willfully). It also shows that the instruction booklet, not being an information collection request, cannot save the violations of the form 1040 (placing something on page 72 that is to appear obvious and on the surface of a request which comes "first," in my opinion, looks more like hiding than displaying.
I would also suggest here that there is a reason why the IRS hides the PRA and even ignores the existence of the 1995 Act (see mentioning 1980 PRA in 2006 instruction booklet) and that is because they are required to "first" tell you what they can do with your answers to their questions, how they will be used and whether your requirement to answer is voluntary or mandatory. See Section 3506(1995 PRA).
The form 1040 is a perjury trap.
|