so, to make sure i understand:

1. non-response is no good [this is my thinking as well, but i needed to post the option for feedback anyway], even though there appears to be no response required.

2. "not employed here" is OK.

3. asking for clarification of the IRC that the IRS is attempting to hold PEACEFUL VALLEY, INC., to is admitting to some sort of jurisdiction? correct me if i'm wrong, however, as PEACEFUL VALLEY, INC., is an S-Corp (creature of the STATE), isn't it already within the jurisdiction of the IRS? and, how can asking for clarification (not a denial!) be argumentative? (i think we've been down this road). btw, nowhere in that doc is a denial of compliance w/o asking for clarification. i guess you could say it is a form of VoD. also, how can asking them to comply with their own laws/rules be dishonorable/argumentative? aren't they "contractually" obligated to do so?

there was a case recently, microsoft as a matter of fact, wherein Eolas and MS were going at it over plug-in tech for browsers. MS initially lost, but appealed. the upper court ruled the judge in the lower court blatantly screwed up and awarded the appeal and remanded back to lower court for re-trial. if gov't can screw up, why can't the IRS?

at any rate, i look forward to your email as i know it'll be informative.

thank you for your response(s) so far!

jon