Levy time!

[palani]

I remember hearing something about any entity handling public money (as in withholding) is required to have an Article 6 oath of fidelity and be bonded. Has this path been checked out?

[scottinalaska]

Now that would be something wouldn't it!?
Here's hoping if that avenue has some merit, someone will post while I am looking!
Thanks for chiming in, Palani.
scott

[weishaupt1776]

Scott, if you really want to turn it up, just set the school up for a federal lawsuit somehow.

I believe that Lost at C doc is the deal, though regarding admiralty

I will have to remember this in my prayers

[Codee]

Originally Posted by rentiap

Interestingly, the above word “individual” used in the definition of “person” is never defined anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code, so we have to use the definition from the legal dictionary. Don’t use the definition from the conventional dictionary or you’ll really confuse yourself! Here is the definition of “individual” in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 773, we find:

Individual. As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include [be limited to] artificial persons.

Well there are a few things corect and wrong with this and some parts that should have expanding.

First I would point out that the rule of law working on criminal cases in the state of California is that where there is no statutory definition and the legislative intent is not clear then the definition most favourable to the defendant is the one to use in a case. This I found out when I was charged with entering and occupying as part of a 602(l) pc charge. I argued that although I had entered the building I had not occupied it. THe case was dismissed absent the DA showing any probably cause of occupation.

For those who always are demanding proof of stuff it was arresting officer Greg(ory) McKenzie of the GVPD, the case was heard by Judge Darlington and was prosecuted by DA deputy Olver Pong. I had codefendent who also had all charges dropped.

In the CFR at title 40 there is a definition for individual declaring it to be a natural perosn. Title 40 §27.2 Definitions.

The code is therefor able to denote natural persons as a "definition." The only reason to give special definition to the word to mean only natural person is that the term "INDIVIDUAL" may and must include other things in its normal ordinary sense.

Individual can mean one of anything... including one corporation OR human being. This makes it confusing because there could also even be an individual apple, or chair.

This is when we must look to the context of the word and acossiate it with the other terms in the list to help flush out a definition.

It is when the term is stuck in a list of artificial entities that the term individual takes on the characteristics of those term near it in itemization or list.

[scottinalaska]

As long as we are looking at definitions, in the included "Excerpts from the IRCode" paper included my wife's and the School district's packet(how kind), they list this right at the top:
IRC 6331- Levy and distraint.

(a) Authority of Secretary. If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax. [in red, was NOT included, but found IN the code]: Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official). If the Secretary makes a finding that the collection of such tax is in jeopardy, notice and demand for immediate payment of such tax may be made by the Secretary and, upon failure or refusal to pay such tax, collection thereof by levy shall be lawful without regard to the 10-day period provided in this section.

Why oh why would they not include that part emphasized in red? Me thinks it is too obvious to a reasonable person that most people simply do not qualify. BUT HERE IS THE QUESTION I need help with. What you see above in red will be construed that since my wife is a public school teacher, she must work for the United States, and thus qualifies. I don't want to think it says that, but may be wrong. Anyone got a good response here or can offer some clarification?
Also, again and again, the Secretary is mentioned. Can I question why I see no title of Secretary on my "Notice of Lein" paper?
thanks,
scottinalaska

[PANICPASS]

Since the public school receives funding from the government the school has no choice but to comply with the notice of levy. The school cannot assist your wife without compromising its own funds. IMO, the only thing she [you] can do at this stage is battle it out with IRS.

Did your wife sign a W-4 without restriction? If so, then her signature was freely given and the jurat statement on the W-4 is valid, I.E. not null and void due to the nonforced signature.

A restricted signature is one in which you state in writing (as an attachment to the W-4) that your signature not freely given, that it is given under threat, duress and coercion.

[scottinalaska]

Panic,
Interestingly enough, the District Office Accountant lady said to my wife, "You don't have a W2 on file with us, so you should come fill one out."
Of course the District does not have one. A year ago the IRS told them to NOT accept her present W2 as legitimate and not to accept any future ones if she claims more than zero exemptions. This resulted in huge "donations" to the IRS, but the wife didn't want to fight it, so we let it go.
Thus, she has no form, willingly or unwillingly, on file!
The IRS is not the entity that gives funds to the school, but I suppose they could use the argument that if they dare didN'T send my wife's money in, they would cease to receive moneys.
Interestingly enough, the form that tells them to mail in the money contains NO penalty for NOT doing it. Sure there are some "Excerpts from the IRC" printed extremely small on one page, many not having to do with this at all, but none are highlighted or repeated on the actual "Notice of Levy" forms.
Could this mean something?
scottinalaska

[PANICPASS]

A year ago the IRS told them to NOT accept her present W2 as legitimate and not to accept any future ones if she claims more than zero exemptions. This resulted in huge "donations" to the IRS, but the wife didn't want to fight it, so we let it go.

I presume you mean W-4, not W-2. You said the school does not have a W-4 on file for your wife, yet you said, “… the IRS told them to NOT accept her present W2 as legitimate and not to accept any future ones if she claims more than zero exemptions??” That means the school does have a [old] W-4 on file, otherwise the IRS would not have been able to tell the school not to accept her W-4. If you don’t complete a new W-4 each year does it mean they never had one to begin with? If they never had one to begin with that would be a different story, and from you say, it doesn’t sound like the school never had one --they just don’t have a current W-4.

The IRS is not the entity that gives funds to the school, but I suppose they could use the argument that if they dare didN'T send my wife's money in, they would cease to receive moneys.

Government funding is only one reason they believe they are obligated to comply with IRS. They probably have a long list of reasons why they are obligated, none of which apply to your wife.

Interestingly enough, the form that tells them to mail in the money contains NO penalty for NOT doing it. Sure there are some "Excerpts from the IRC" printed extremely small on one page, many not having to do with this at all, but none are highlighted or repeated on the actual "Notice of Levy" forms. Could this mean something?

So give them the Excerpt from the IRC which says there is no penalty for not complying with the Notice. IMO, you are going to need A LOT more than an "Excerpt from the IRC." A levy implies that you received due process. You need to do some heavy duty writing to IRS on that subject, IMO.

[scottinalaska]

Duh, yes. I meant W4, not W2.
Receiving Due Process means a judge was in the process SOMEwhere. This is not the case. There is not even a signature.
But you are right, I'll need a boat load, but not TOO much to overwhelm them to give them this week. I'll post my points here shortly for everyone's benefit as well as opportunity to say, "Good point" or "Weak point, you oughta scratch that" or "That sounds a bit mean and you don't want them mad" etc.
Any points that someone has off the top of their head that you think should be included before I post as I am composing right now, feel free to post below!
Thanks.
scottinalaska

[PANICPASS]

When you voluntarily sign the W-4, with an unrestricted signature, and without any disclaimer statement, then all the money you make is deemed to be wages without exception. See 26 CFR Sec. 31.3401(a)-3, which states:

"(a) In general. Notwithstanding the exceptions to the definition of wages specified in section 3401(a) and the regulations thereunder, the term "wages" includes the amounts described in paragraph (b)

(1)of this section with respect to which there is a voluntary withholding agreement in effect under section 3402(p).

References in this chapter to the definition of wages contained in section 3401 (a) shall be deemed to refer also to this section (Sec. 31.3401(a)-3)."