Substitute Return

Ice · #1 09-23-2003, 02:42 PM

<COLOR=BLUE>Have received a letter from the tax man.& States he is going to submit a "substitute" 1040 for me due to the fact that I have not filed one for the year in question.

Ain't it funny how they attempt to draw you back into slavery every now and then?& This is going to be fun.

While I'm working on this one, I'd like to hear from others in regards to the steps they would take with this particular situation.</COLOR>

Ice · #2 09-23-2003, 02:42 PM

<COLOR=BLUE>Have received a letter from the tax man.& States he is going to submit a "substitute" 1040 for me due to the fact that I have not filed one for the year in question.

Ain't it funny how they attempt to draw you back into slavery every now and then?& This is going to be fun.

While I'm working on this one, I'd like to hear from others in regards to the steps they would take with this particular situation.</COLOR>

suijuris · #3 09-23-2003, 03:08 PM

Isn't it odd that&their computer&feels the need to contact you before taking said action? If&that machine&has the authority to do this without your consent, why notifiy you? Do we notify debtors before filing a UCC FS after they default? NO! Why? Because it is a waste of postage.

Sounds like he needs your permission, even if it is just by silence.

Not sure of the correct reply, but sounds like they need to establish their authority, before proceeding.

And if they proceed, then they will have to verify the debt. No agent will put his/her name to this return, it is just a computerized printout, a peice of code doing it's job.

Time to find the software programmers responsible for the code and suing them for the harm their unverified claims have caused you.

suijuris · #4 09-23-2003, 03:08 PM

Isn't it odd that&their computer&feels the need to contact you before taking said action? If&that machine&has the authority to do this without your consent, why notifiy you? Do we notify debtors before filing a UCC FS after they default? NO! Why? Because it is a waste of postage.

Sounds like he needs your permission, even if it is just by silence.

Not sure of the correct reply, but sounds like they need to establish their authority, before proceeding.

And if they proceed, then they will have to verify the debt. No agent will put his/her name to this return, it is just a computerized printout, a peice of code doing it's job.

Time to find the software programmers responsible for the code and suing them for the harm their unverified claims have caused you.

Andy© · #5 09-23-2003, 03:31 PM

Ice: I would use the Conditional Acceptance and Redraft&and Negative Averment (CA&R/NA) approach.& I'd add, as an attachment to the CA&R/NA, a Notice by Written Communication / Security Agreement (NbWC/SA).That is until I have learned to fully appreciate and understand OT's full Acceptance approach.& Then again I believe OT had a post in another forum on the criteria for which IRS letters one has to ever bother responding to. Most of them, per his post, requires no response at all - and yet&should cause no dishonor...

&

Sui Juris: That, i.e. dealing with&the software producers,&may not be such a bad idea indeed!& Perhaps if one could send each of them a Notice by Written Communication / Security Agreement (NbWC/SA).& Trouble is: It may be hard to find&those programmers&except by personal connections... and that may push them even further into obscurity.& Perhaps if the code itself could be accessed and analyzed for personal characteristics unique for the author the latter problem could be solved??& But how do you access the code?

In the meantime I think I'd settle for each of 1. the names/signatories upon the letter received, 2. the IRS Commissioner (Charles O. Rossotti?), 3. IRS General Counsel (David Aushauser?), and 4. IRS itself.

Andy© · #6 09-23-2003, 03:31 PM

Ice: I would use the Conditional Acceptance and Redraft&and Negative Averment (CA&R/NA) approach.& I'd add, as an attachment to the CA&R/NA, a Notice by Written Communication / Security Agreement (NbWC/SA).That is until I have learned to fully appreciate and understand OT's full Acceptance approach.& Then again I believe OT had a post in another forum on the criteria for which IRS letters one has to ever bother responding to. Most of them, per his post, requires no response at all - and yet&should cause no dishonor...

&

Sui Juris: That, i.e. dealing with&the software producers,&may not be such a bad idea indeed!& Perhaps if one could send each of them a Notice by Written Communication / Security Agreement (NbWC/SA).& Trouble is: It may be hard to find&those programmers&except by personal connections... and that may push them even further into obscurity.& Perhaps if the code itself could be accessed and analyzed for personal characteristics unique for the author the latter problem could be solved??& But how do you access the code?

In the meantime I think I'd settle for each of 1. the names/signatories upon the letter received, 2. the IRS Commissioner (Charles O. Rossotti?), 3. IRS General Counsel (David Aushauser?), and 4. IRS itself.

suijuris · #7 09-23-2003, 03:43 PM

Perhaps you could use the Freedom of Information Act to determine who&created of the code used by BB.

Each agency that exists must have gatekeepers (IT personel) who control who can/can't access the records, what triggers this letter, when not to send that letter, and so on. They have to be sure all the systems are running correctly and spitting out the letters as programmed.

With enough patience and social engineering, the correct gatekeeper will be located, and we will learn the correct message to communicate to that gatekeeper to stop the letters from being generated.

No letters, no problems.

suijuris · #8 09-23-2003, 03:43 PM

Perhaps you could use the Freedom of Information Act to determine who&created of the code used by BB.

Each agency that exists must have gatekeepers (IT personel) who control who can/can't access the records, what triggers this letter, when not to send that letter, and so on. They have to be sure all the systems are running correctly and spitting out the letters as programmed.

With enough patience and social engineering, the correct gatekeeper will be located, and we will learn the correct message to communicate to that gatekeeper to stop the letters from being generated.

No letters, no problems.

Ice · #9 09-23-2003, 03:46 PM

Actually, this is not a computer generated letter and is signed by an agent.& Sorry I failed to mention that in my initial post.

Here is the fact of the matter:& There must be a return on file in order&for them to make a "substitute".& They have no authority under 6020(b) to "create" a return. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed., defines the term "substitute" to mean, "One who or that which stands in the place of another person or thing; to exchange."

Phillips v. Commissioner, 88 TC 529 (1987):
"Respondent's [IRS's] counsel may not choose to litigate against officially published rulings of the Commissioner without first withdrawing or modifying those rulings. ... The forms ...were no more than dummy returns filed for processing purposes." The court continued: "The only evidence in the record that even suggested that any [IRS] substitute return existed was a transcript of account that reflected actions taken inconsistently with the law (86 T.C. at 437 n. 5) and consistently with the conclusion that the only paper filed by respondent [IRS] was a first page of a Form 1040 for the taxable year 1979. 86 T.C. at 437. This form reported only petitioner's name, address, and social security number, and was not executed by respondent [the IRS]. 86 T.C. at 437. ... It was, therefore, unreasonable for respondent [IRS] to pursue his groundless position that these dummy returns, which failed to meet the requirements of section 6020(b) and his own regulations, were 'returns' for purposes of section 6013(b). The record could not reasonably be viewed as supporting this argument [of IRS]."

Ice · #10 09-23-2003, 03:46 PM

Actually, this is not a computer generated letter and is signed by an agent.& Sorry I failed to mention that in my initial post.

Here is the fact of the matter:& There must be a return on file in order&for them to make a "substitute".& They have no authority under 6020(b) to "create" a return. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed., defines the term "substitute" to mean, "One who or that which stands in the place of another person or thing; to exchange."

Phillips v. Commissioner, 88 TC 529 (1987):
"Respondent's [IRS's] counsel may not choose to litigate against officially published rulings of the Commissioner without first withdrawing or modifying those rulings. ... The forms ...were no more than dummy returns filed for processing purposes." The court continued: "The only evidence in the record that even suggested that any [IRS] substitute return existed was a transcript of account that reflected actions taken inconsistently with the law (86 T.C. at 437 n. 5) and consistently with the conclusion that the only paper filed by respondent [IRS] was a first page of a Form 1040 for the taxable year 1979. 86 T.C. at 437. This form reported only petitioner's name, address, and social security number, and was not executed by respondent [the IRS]. 86 T.C. at 437. ... It was, therefore, unreasonable for respondent [IRS] to pursue his groundless position that these dummy returns, which failed to meet the requirements of section 6020(b) and his own regulations, were 'returns' for purposes of section 6013(b). The record could not reasonably be viewed as supporting this argument [of IRS]."