Taxation Discuss Taxation (IRS, Real Estate Taxes, Car Taxes, etc.).


Go Back   Suijuris Forums > Educational & Learning > Taxation
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 07-23-2007, 06:51 AM
clarkee's Avatar
clarkee clarkee is offline
Practice Makes Perfect
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: texas
Posts: 223
IRC section 6651(a) (2)

Greetings everyone. Been up a good part of the night studying this letter I got from the IRS about a week ago.
I have amended overpayment returns back in Jan. for the 03, 04, 05 and 06. I received the typical response from Dennis Parizek in Ogden Utah. I think you all know the word since it appears to be the only one in their vocabulary, FRIVOLOUS. I was informed that if I didn't change my position then they were gonna access a penalty charge in 30 days. I fired back my response and never heard anything else from him. About a month or so ago I received a letter from the iRS in Austin for a penalty and interest charge. Well, I didn't pay too much attention to it and let it go. Last week I got another letter from IRS, letter CP 503. Now get this, they were charging me a penalty for my 2003 return not being paid on time. I got to thinking, this is funny, why are they bringing this up now? It seems we are going from frivolous assessment to not paying on time. So I started thinking, by paying this I'm admitting to be a taxpayer because I'm paying a penalty on the late return. Well, I thought if I'm filing amended returns then this means that I'm not a taxpayer and this penalty doesn't apply to me. Well, come to think about it, it doesn't even apply if you are a taxpayer. When you read this code closely you'll find that it doesn't pertain to the income tax period. It falls under 27 USC BATF.I thought this was funny because they were trying to levy a penalty on me for something that doesn't even apply. I called Austin a while ago and talked to an IRS representative and told her that this penalty doesn't pertain to me and why. She couldn't say very much. I informed her that I would be resending my amended returns back and this time I expect an answer on whats so frivolous about these. I informed her that I would be notifying my congressman on this issue since this has the looks of constructive fraud. I just wanted anybody who gets a letter under this code read it first, it doesn't pertain to you.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-23-2007, 07:49 AM
FreeFromContract's Avatar
FreeFromContract FreeFromContract is offline
Mental Jujitsu
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 676
Quote:
Originally Posted by clarkee
When you read this code closely you'll find that it doesn't pertain to the income tax period. It falls under 27 USC BATF.I thought this was funny because they were trying to levy a penalty on me for something that doesn't even apply. I called Austin a while ago and talked to an IRS representative and told her that this penalty doesn't pertain to me and why. She couldn't say very much. I informed her that I would be resending my amended returns back and this time I expect an answer on whats so frivolous about these. I informed her that I would be notifying my congressman on this issue since this has the looks of constructive fraud. I just wanted anybody who gets a letter under this code read it first, it doesn't pertain to you.

What do you think about the possibility of them having you classified as an arms dealer or some other such nonsense in your IMF? You could request it, but that request would probably be sent back with a letter stating your request was FRIVOLOUS as well.
__________________
Liberty: Freedom from restraint and the power to follow one's own will to choose a course of conduct. Liberty, like freedom, has its inherent restraint to act without harm to others and within the accepted rules of conduct for the benefit of the general public.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-24-2007, 01:21 AM
clarkee's Avatar
clarkee clarkee is offline
Practice Makes Perfect
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: texas
Posts: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeFromContract
What do you think about the possibility of them having you classified as an arms dealer or some other such nonsense in your IMF? You could request it, but that request would probably be sent back with a letter stating your request was FRIVOLOUS as well.
It really doesn't matter to me. I know the truth and rhats all that matters
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-24-2007, 06:49 PM
ThomPaine ThomPaine is offline
Practice Makes Perfect
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: georgia state
Posts: 444
I think mine was that I was working at a hospital in Puerto Rico, not 100% sure, will have to dig it out and see..Never been to PR and never worked in the medical field..
__________________
Blowing down the house of cards, one puff at a time.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-24-2007, 07:14 PM
clarkee's Avatar
clarkee clarkee is offline
Practice Makes Perfect
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: texas
Posts: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThomPaine
I think mine was that I was working at a hospital in Puerto Rico, not 100% sure, will have to dig it out and see..Never been to PR and never worked in the medical field..
Isn't that interesting? I've called the IRS and talked to one of their representatives. I told this lady that I wasn't a person of interest and you are assessing a penalty under an IRC code that is charged under 27 USC, BATF. I told the lady that I was notifying my Congressman about this constructive fraud and the lady said, why don't u do that? I told her, you can bet your sweet ass I'm filing a complaint on this. After I said this the lady asked was it a Senator or a Congressman. I told her a Congressman. She must of had somewhat of a concern. I called my local Congressman's office and told them the whole story about filing 4 overpayment returns and being told that all this was frivolous and asking why are they frivolous and not being told. Then about 5 months later I get this frivolous claims that my 03,04, and 05 returns were paid late. Yea, right! My Congressman told me to respond to those IRC 6651 (a) (2) claims and if the answer I got back was not acceptable they would get involved. I received 2day a release letter from my Congressman's office and I'll go ahead and send it to them. I'm sending the IRS a very nice letter with all kinds of violations. Can't wait to hear from these sorry thugs.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-25-2007, 06:15 PM
ThomPaine ThomPaine is offline
Practice Makes Perfect
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: georgia state
Posts: 444
during a recent conversation with a Justice department employee, I told her that I did not participate in priviledged activity. Her reply: if you are not a priviledged person then we have no interest in you.

there are people on the inside who know the truth. Few and far between probably, but those people wont volunteer the truth for sure. The conversation was only a few minutes long, as she quickly realised that i knew enough to know that I was not part of their system, earning taxable income, etc.
__________________
Blowing down the house of cards, one puff at a time.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-25-2007, 09:28 PM
clarkee's Avatar
clarkee clarkee is offline
Practice Makes Perfect
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: texas
Posts: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThomPaine
during a recent conversation with a Justice department employee, I told her that I did not participate in priviledged activity. Her reply: if you are not a priviledged person then we have no interest in you.

there are people on the inside who know the truth. Few and far between probably, but those people wont volunteer the truth for sure. The conversation was only a few minutes long, as she quickly realised that i knew enough to know that I was not part of their system, earning taxable income, etc.
It all goes back to knowing where you stand and who you are and not what they want you to be. A living natural person and not a exploited government corporation.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-25-2007, 10:39 PM
rottweiler's Avatar
rottweiler rottweiler is offline
Come and Get Some!
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: judicial district of tens: Milwaukee the county: Wisconsin the land
Posts: 2,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by clarkee
It all goes back to knowing where you stand and who you are and not what they want you to be. A living natural person and not a exploited government corporation.

WTF?

Prove to me that a "natural person" is not a legal fiction because I believe that is exactly what it is. Or maybe you are hue-man? That means color of man.


US Constitution
Amendment XIV
Section 1
All PERSONS born or NATURALIZED in the United States, and SUBJECT TO THE JURIDICTION THEREOF are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Because the practice is consistent and seemingly universal, it cannot be without purpose. Which is to say, there is some reason for name perversion. The reason is explained by definitions found at 15 U.S.C. § 11 27, reproduced below in relative part:

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access [Laws in effect as of January 27, 1998]
Sec. 1127. Construction and definitions; intent of chapter

In the construction of this chapter, unless the contrary is plainly apparent from the context;

The United States includes and embraces all territory which is under its jurisdiction and control.

The word "commerce'' means all commerce which may lawfully be regulated by Congress.

The term "person'' and any other word or term used to designate the applicant or other entitled to a benefit or privilege or rendered liable under the provisions of this chapter includes a juristic person as well as a natural person. The term "juristic person'' includes a firm, corporation, union, association, or other organization capable of suing and being sued in a court of law.

The term "person'' also includes any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.

The terms "applicant'' and "registrant'' embrace the legal representatives, predecessors, successors and assigns of such applicant or registrant.

The terms "trade name'' and "commercial name'' mean any name used by a person to identify his or her business or vocation.

The term "trademark'' includes any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof;

used by a person, or
(2) which a person has a bona fide intention to use in commerce and applies to register on the principal register established by this chapter, to identify and distinguish his or her goods, including a unique product, from those manufactured or sold by others and to indicate the source of the goods, even if that source is unknown.

The term "service mark'' means any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof;

used by a person, or
(2) which a person has a bona fide intention to use in commerce and applies to register on the principal register established by this chapter, to identify and distinguish the services of one person, including a unique service, from the services of others and to indicate the source of the services, even if that source is unknown. Titles, character names, and other distinctive features of radio or television programs may be registered as service marks notwithstanding that they, or the programs, may advertise the goods of the sponsor.

The term "use in commerce'' means the bona fide use of a mark in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mar k. For purposes of this chapter, a mark shall be deemed to be in use in commerce;

1)on goods when;
2)it is placed in any manner on the goods or their containers or the displays associated therewith or on the tags or labels affixed thereto, or if the nature of the goods makes such placement impracticable, then on do cuments associated with the goods or their sale, and
3)the goods are sold or transported in commerce, and on services when it is used or displayed in the sale or advertising of services and the services are rendered in commerce, or the services are rendered in more than one State or in the United States and a foreign country and the person r endering the services is engaged in commerce in connection with the services.

This section is referred to in 19 U.S.C. §§ 1526 & 1595a , which primarily involve maritime drug trade. This is one of three primary purposes of the juristic or commercial name, i.e., JOHN DOE instead of John Doe. The juristic or commercial name, trade name, is predicated on maritime causes, i.e., private international law.
http://www.svpvril.com/dmjuristic.html
__________________
United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in Alabama or any of the new states which were formed ... The United States has no Constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty or eminent domain, within the limits of a state or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted ...
[Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845)]

Last edited by rottweiler : 07-25-2007 at 11:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-26-2007, 02:59 AM
Notorial dissent Notorial dissent is offline
Mental Jujitsu
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 651
15 USC 1127 applies ONLY to the trademark statute. So your point would be?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-26-2007, 09:49 AM
rottweiler's Avatar
rottweiler rottweiler is offline
Come and Get Some!
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: judicial district of tens: Milwaukee the county: Wisconsin the land
Posts: 2,613
A natural person is a legal fiction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Notorial dissent
15 USC 1127 applies ONLY to the trademark statute. So your point would be?
__________________
United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in Alabama or any of the new states which were formed ... The United States has no Constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty or eminent domain, within the limits of a state or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted ...
[Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845)]
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FTC comment Section 604 of the Fair Credit Reporting cobra7 Banks, Collectors, and CRAs 1 04-11-2005 11:55 AM
Download Section Suggestions weishaupt1776 Website Help & Enhancements 1 11-12-2004 09:42 AM
USC 42 section 651 goldphoenix Court 2 12-05-2003 12:58 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:20 AM.
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
2003-2008 Copyright by Law Research Group, LLC Terms of Use | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Notice/Disclaimer