[Logan]

Yeah, but I would get more satisfaction from the Louisville slugger option.

But you are right, when we all cease to play THEIR game, the solution will be naturally acheived. (hopefully in my lifetime).

and weis, I really liked the deprogramming link you posted, thanks.



BTW, I wanted to share this article from Joe Bannister's newsletter.

FREEDOM ABOVE FORTUNE NEWS
>
>Dear Friends,
>
>The other day I distributed my colleague (former IRS Collection Division 10 year veteran Revenue Officer) John Turner's objection to proposed changes to the "6020(b)" regulations. John authored a subsequent commentary on the topic that I thought was equally powerful and very educational. John gave me permission to forward it to you so here it is. John spends a great deal of time educating others with his unique knowledge of the inner workings of the Internal Revenue Service. He has done this important work because of his dedication to the truth and without compensation ever since his resignation from the IRS in 1997. John is not aware that I wanted to make this request (until he reads this email) but I will happily accept and forward any donations that you would like to send John's way as a thank you for his efforts. Just be sure to tell me the donation is meant for John. The address is near the end of this email. Happy reading!
>
>***************************************
>The "OBJECTION TO THE RULE AND REQUEST FOR A PUBLIC HEARING" email below, distributed by my friend Joe Banister, himself a former IRS Criminal Investigation Division special agent, to approximately 6,000 people who have signed up to be on his email list, is a 5 page document I wrote and sent to the IRS objecting to some newly proposed tax regulations. I thought I would take a few minutes to explain to some of you why I wrote what I wrote and why I wrote it the way I did.
>
>Congress is charged with writing federal tax laws and it is the Secretary of the Treasury who is responsible to write the regulations that correspond with the tax laws. The Secretary's regulations are to be an accurate interpretation and explanation of the law to aid his enforcement of the law. Regulations are not supposed to create new law where no law exists or add to the law where a law does not speak. Certain regulations, if they meet appropriate criteria, may have the force and effect of law but regulations cannot "make law". Only Congress is authorized to write the law; the Secretary of the Treasury is not. The proposed rules for Internal Revenue Code section 6020(b) are only now, finally, being proposed by the IRS after many years absence! The regulations that have been in place all the many years had never been promulgated. These particular regulations were never published in the Federal Register (which is what is now finally happening). Regulations, in order to be applicable and enforceable against members of the public, must be given a period of review and exposed to the public for objection and comment before they can take affect. Without that opportunity for review, the public would not have a way to challenge the regulations or to disover what regulations have any direct affect on themselves or whether they are required to do anything under the law. The method used is to publish proposed rules in the Federal Register, allowing a period of time for public comment and an opportunity to request a public hearing. This summer during tax court litigation wherein the citizen pointed out that regulations for IRC 6020(b) had never been promulgated, the IRS suddenly put forward these proposed rules in the Federal Register. They fall short (to say the least) which is why I wrote and objected to them and requested a public hearing.
>
>Although it is correct that these proposed regulations do not comply with the law as written, which is why I have objected, the brutal, cold, hard truth of the matter is that under current law, no regulations could be written which would allow the IRS to make an income tax return for any individual who fails to file one! Does that seem unbelievable?
>
>Some of you might wonder why I chose to write such a lengthy objection and why I chose to include some rather pointed claims. Yes, a simple and effective objection and request for a public hearing could have been done on one page if that had been my sole purpose. And that was the main purpose. However, this issue in law (IRS' administration of section 6020(b) of the tax Code with respect to income tax 'nonfilers) is complex. It should not be confusing or difficult but it is, and that is only because the government has purposely made it so. Nevertheless, I believe that the public needs to be informed on the subject and the muddiness needs to be clarified. I suspected that my document might find its way into the public domain and based upon that, regardless of the eventual outcome of the many objections that have been made to these proposed regulations by many, many people, I thought it wise to make the document useful for regular people who are not necessarily informed about aspects of tax law administration, especially the subject of "Substitute For Return/IRC section 6020(b)". Most people are not.
>
>I will digress a bit. I believe that most Americans dutifully file 1040 individual income tax forms and pay income tax as declared on their returns each April 15th not because of any knowledge they have about what the law actually requires of them, but rather they do so out of a combination of things: 1) a BELIEF that they are required to do so, sort of the "everybody knows you must pay taxes" mentality, 2) a FEAR of would happen to them if they failed to, 3) a FEELING that "paying taxes" is PATRIOTIC, and, 4) a BELIEF that the government could not operate if they did not contribute (pay their fair share). I think most people probably believe they are required to pay income tax but do not "know" it to be true; they have not made an informed determination to verify it for themselves.
>
>The IRS enforces the tax code through whatever measure of intimidation and fear that it deems is necessary on a case by case basis. The activity of tax collection in the United States is highly politicized and is policy driven in nature. Unfortunately it is not a matter of law enforcement, even though that is what the public is lead to believe. As an aside here to illustrate this, if the law requires everyone to file a Form 1040, why then does the IRS and the Department of Justice only "come after" some people who have "violated" the law by not filing their form 1040's? Millions and millions of individuals fail to file a form 1040 every year. Why doesn't the IRS criminally pursue all of them? You could answer that the IRS does not have the resources to pursue everyone and you would be correct in that but you would also still be missing the main point. Why don't all people who don't file tax returns all get prosecuted with their freedom subjected to the whims of 12 citizens on a jury? If there really is a lawful requirement to file a Form 1040, why isn't the law in that respect applied EVENLY across the board? A sufficient explanation in covering all the legal complexities associated with this would be long-winded, and should not be so.
>
>You see, simply failing to file a Form 1040 is not criminal. The element of "willfulness" is involved in making the failure to file a return a criminal matter. "Willful" is a word with a legal meaning. The standard used by the courts in criminal tax trials for the word willfulness, has changed over time. Not too many years ago in tax trials, it would connote "bad faith, evil purpose". In fact, the classroom hand-out materials that were used in my training as a revenue officer in 1987 included "bad faith and evil purpose" as elements of willfulness. The Suprement Court has allowed that standard to be diminished. "Willfulness", in the legal sense, was traditionally never meant to be solely equated with "deliberately", "on purpose", "purposely" or "purposefully". For all practical purposes in today's criminal tax trials, the standard for "willfulness" for failure to file or pay pretty much makes it the same as "deliberately" or "purposefully". As a revenue officer, part of my duties included the responsibility of demanding delinqent tax returns from people. A quality interview of the taxpayer would include an effort to determine why returns had not been filed. Most people, however it was manifested, would tell me that when they discovered they could not pay the tax and were then overcome with fear, imagining somehow that not filing their return would help them. My point is that most people's answers to my question indicated that there was a conscious decision not to file their income tax returns. Their "fear" did not necessarily mean "bad faith or evil purpose" was part of their failure to file. Under the standard for "willfulness" now being used in criminal tax trials, the government's job of getting convictions has been made easier. Theoretically, if the IRS was to criminally pursue everyone who failed to timely file an income tax return and used the current standard for willfulness, lots and lots of (innocent) citizens might be convicted and incarcerated. The truth is, way too many citizens HAVE BEEN and ARE BEING criminally prosecuted using what I believe is a deficient standard for the all important legal term "willful".