WARNING about a particular IRS Letter

[rushpat]

Does anyone recall the citation that requires the IRS to include an OMB number on all information requests?

At first, I thought it was from Schulz vs IRS, but now that I think about it, that was not for information but property, right?

[Chinese Panda]

I'm not sure but perhaps you are referring to this one...

"Yet a third provision reinforcing our conclusion that disclosure rules are not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act is the statute's mechanism for assuring agency compliance with its terms. When OMB approves an information collection request, it issues a control number which is placed on all forms. If a request does not receive OMB approval, it is not issued a control number, and the agency is prohibited from collecting the information. See 44 U.S.C. §§ 3504(c)(3)(A), 3507(f) (1982 ed.). In addition, if the agency nevertheless promulgates the paperwork requirement, members of the public may ignore it without risk of penalty. See 44 U.S.C. § 3512. (1982 ed.). [Footnote 6] However, this protection of the public is applicable only to information-gathering rules. Section 3512 provides that

"no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to maintain or provide information to any agency if the information collection request involved . . . does not display a current control number assigned by the [OMB]. . . ."

Ibid. (emphasis added)."

Source: http://supreme.justia.com/us/494/26/case.html#F6

Can anybody here tell me exactly when and by what method the OMB approves information collection request/demand forms? If they (the OMB) never did actually approve a form and an agency nevertheless promulgates the paperwork requirement, isn't the individual covered for not using the form? But, it only covers him for not using the form, he still has to "report" or "return" the information if required by statute. Is that correct?

[ThomPaine]

Up until recently I have received, opened and responded to every letter/notice from the IRS. I keep the original and send them a certified copy, return receipt requested.

I did this for years, always rebutting or refuting whatever their claim was in the letter. This worked for a USTC case as well. Got a letter saying I was a petitioner, respond to chief counsel something or other for Atlanta by this date, etc... Wrote a letter back and said I am not a petitioner as I did not petition you or the USTC for anything. COpied USTC on it and got an immediate dismissal letter from the robe with lack of jurisdiction stamped on it.

For the most recent certified letter I received, a card was left at my mailing address. I then went to the post office and refused delivery. I was not asked for ID of any kind and I never touched the letter. The clerk wrote REFUSED on it in black pen in all caps and entered something into the computer and put it in a basket. I was tempted to ask if I could write refused for cause in red ink like I usually do, but i did not...

I dont care what they do with it, but I guess I kinda wonder if i would be better off opening and responding to the letters as I have in the past, even if it is only to refute their claims and send it back... If they try to sue me again, I will just repeat the process above. Until I can get to my next step, I am somewhat stuck doing what I am doing..

Will keep my eyes open for the letter above..

Thom

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by ThomPaine

Up until recently I have received, opened and responded to every letter/notice from the IRS. I keep the original and send them a certified copy, return receipt requested.

I did this for years, always rebutting or refuting whatever their claim was in the letter. This worked for a USTC case as well. Got a letter saying I was a petitioner, respond to chief counsel something or other for Atlanta by this date, etc... Wrote a letter back and said I am not a petitioner as I did not petition you or the USTC for anything. COpied USTC on it and got an immediate dismissal letter from the robe with lack of jurisdiction stamped on it.

For the most recent certified letter I received, a card was left at my mailing address. I then went to the post office and refused delivery. I was not asked for ID of any kind and I never touched the letter. The clerk wrote REFUSED on it in black pen in all caps and entered something into the computer and put it in a basket. I was tempted to ask if I could write refused for cause in red ink like I usually do, but i did not...

I dont care what they do with it, but I guess I kinda wonder if i would be better off opening and responding to the letters as I have in the past, even if it is only to refute their claims and send it back... If they try to sue me again, I will just repeat the process above. Until I can get to my next step, I am somewhat stuck doing what I am doing..

Will keep my eyes open for the letter above..

Thom

I would continue to respond to their letters. I prefer to let them know why I am refusing their attempts at coercion. I haven't filed one of their ridiculous confession statements in a decade.

ChallengeAllLevies

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/In...eAllLevies.htm

Further, the more you respond, the more someone at a higher level (more $) must deal with you. This cost the mendacious IRS more resources, this is part of what I am trying to accomplish.

I try to get my funds out of easy targets, like banks, they will hand over your property in a flash. If you must use a bank or brokerage account, change accounts regularly. This makes any investigation more time consuming, this is good.

I try not use any sort of singular number (SSN) for all of my business. This makes it harder for the evil agents to track you.

I use different names and addresses when ever possible. Just make sure you pay any accounts like this on time, and as agreed, so there few questions raised.

Of course, this is not legal, or any other, advice. Just a couple hints. It goes without saying, that you should come up with your own common sense ideas, being that agents of deception may be watching.

Good luck,

BOBT12

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by rushpat

Does anyone recall the citation that requires the IRS to include an OMB number on all information requests?

At first, I thought it was from Schulz vs IRS, but now that I think about it, that was not for information but property, right?

Search around here for "Robert Lawrence". It is cited in the 1040 Instructions. [But the flaw is that the 1980 PRA is cited and Lawrence kept thinking that meant the 1995 PRA was in effect. Lots of debate about my theory though.]


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Charlie Blue]

Originally Posted by BOBT12

I would continue to respond to their letters. I prefer to let them know why I am refusing their attempts at coercion. I haven't filed one of their ridiculous confession statements in a decade.

LOL That's why I didn't fill out the form.

Originally Posted by BOBT12

ChallengeAllLevies

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/In...eAllLevies.htm

Further, the more you respond, the more someone at a higher level (more $) must deal with you. This cost the mendacious IRS more resources, this is part of what I am trying to accomplish.

I try to get my funds out of easy targets, like banks, they will hand over your property in a flash. If you must use a bank or brokerage account, change accounts regularly. This makes any investigation more time consuming, this is good.

I try not use any sort of singular number (SSN) for all of my business. This makes it harder for the evil agents to track you.

I use different names and addresses when ever possible. Just make sure you pay any accounts like this on time, and as agreed, so there few questions raised.

Of course, this is not legal, or any other, advice. Just a couple hints. It goes without saying, that you should come up with your own common sense ideas, being that agents of deception may be watching.

Good luck,

BOBT12

Real good advice.

[rushpat]

Well, I took that route and decided to return it unfilled, along with a letter stating that I would conditionally agree to fill it out as soon as they provided a bunch of background info on several things, including what prompted the request, how the info would be used, what the codes are, if they consider all caps and normal names to be one and the same, if the matter would be then closed, etc, etc.

Followed by something about if I haven't heard back after x numbers of days, I'll assume the matter is closed, etc.

Plan to follow up after 30 days with something to the effect that they had their opportunity, would give another few days just in case. Then followed at some point later, with a final letter, and affidavit that they had their chances to resolve it,etc. Similar to the old notarial process.

Hopefully, not being filled out, not being refused and not being filled with protestor-type language will get this derailed because someone will probably find this on their desk and will continue to kick it around.

[Charlie Blue]

Well, like I said, I didn't get anymore of those letters/forms since I did what I did early last year. Still, what you've laid-out seems good also Rushpat.

[rushpat]

Well, an update, of sorts:

After nearly 6 months, and a few follow up letters, giving them more time to say why they were doing the 2797, I finally got bills (proposed assessments I believe) for years 2001 to 2006. Pretty hefty sums.

Trying to determine the correct path to take. I realized my mistake in not correcting the w-2's earlier. Yeah, I know, bad thing, but I'm sure even if it is late, that my sworn testimony, via w2c and attached affidavits *should* trump this one piece of evidence upon which they are basing their actions. Of course, with them, who knows?

I've went 17 years without problems from the IRS, then a notice to company to withhold at single/zero. After getting the company to fix this (after a lot of fasting and prayer, and refiled withholding forms correcting the issue), got a reprieve for over 2 and a 1/2 years. Being someone lazy at times, I let it rest there. Unfortunately, the California FTB once again reared it's head, and, like clockwork, their buddies at the IRS came with them, this time sending this 2797, and now, 6 months later, bills for several years past for everything but the kitchen sink.

So, 20 years working and now I'm finally seeing IRS action against me.


I have plenty of work ahead of me, including investigating all options, some of which include challenging the assessment, getting IMFs for previous years, correcting false W-2s on which they base their claims and also protecting what few assets I have.

This time around, things may be different as there is a young lady in my life that may become my bride one day in the not to distant future, that appears to think that it might be a wiser course of action to just see if they will settle and go on a repayment plan and enter their system for the first time in my life. While she at first took my explaination of the income tax system and my history on face value, I believe that she would worry herself to death that life wouldn't be "normal" if she married a man who was targetted by the IRS.

A part of me wonders if this would be the path of least (yet overall, more expensive ) resistance?

Hanging heavily on my head is the thought they sometimes the IRS will tax delinquent tax returns and use them as evidence of a felony.

I also wonder what would occur if I were to take the route I would if I were totally unattached and single: challenge, put the ball into their court, protect assets, change jobs (which I've been thinking of doing anyway), being a contractor, and generally being hard to find and hard to attack. The California FTB just sent bill after bill and then sent to their collections which couldn't do anything outside of California. The IRS showed they have the long arm to reach my company, and I know of their false liens, and how they could cause problems if I ever wanted to purchase a home. Then again, I know some have had success removing those form credit reports (if not public records) sometimes. Lots to consider....


I have plenty to pray about and I thank all those involved in the tax honesty movement.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

what stance have you taken on the tax claims?

meaning, by what reason are you denying the imputation?