How can the IRS use form 4340 as evidence to make you liable for tax?

[SKYGZR]

begin "copy/paste" as follows:

See Commissioner v. Acker, in chief:
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.htm

Here is the IRS "problem" in a "nutshell":
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/nutshell.htm

If you examine their administrative procedures
carefully, e.g. statute authorizing NOTICES OF
DEFICIENCY, you either assess yourself --
on Form 1040 -- or the IRS must perform a
proper assessment. Without a proper assessment,
there can be no deficiency, by statutory
definitions.

A proper ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE must be signed
under penalty of perjury by a duly authorized
ASSESSMENT OFFICER, pursuant to IRC 6065
and Brafman v. U.S.:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/6065.html
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/brafman/

.gif = Graphics Interchange Format (scanner output)

If and when IRS attempts to certify an ASSESSMENT
CERTIFICATE under penalty of perjury, they are
committing perjury, because there is no statute
creating a specific liability for federal income
taxes imposed by subtitle A of the IRC:

http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/subpoena.htm (PAST DUE)
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/eddings....liability.htm

Thus, IRS can not PROVE liability for any income
taxes imposed by IRC subtitle A, unless you have
assessed yourself -- by signing Form 1040.

What renders Form 1040 a satisfactory "assessment"
is the perjury jurat right above the signature line:
that perjury jurat is executed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. 1746(2) i.e. verifications INSIDE
the "United States" (federal government):

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1746.html
(obviates need for a Notary Public to witness signature)

Further discussion of this statute is here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31Q&A.in.evidence.htm


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

IRC section 6211. Definition of deficiency

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/6211.html


This is my paraphrase (using subtitle A income taxes
as an illustration):

(a) For purposes of this title ...

the term "deficiency" means the amount by which
the tax imposed by subtitle A ... exceeds the excess of --

(1) the sum of

(A) the amount shown as the tax by the taxpayer upon his return
...

plus

(B) the amounts previously assessed
(or collected without assessment) as a deficiency ....


So, using simple arithmetic,

D = C - (A + B)

where,

D = Deficiency

C = tax imposed by subtitle A

A = amount shown on tax return (if any)
A = zero if no tax return has been filed

B = amounts previously assessed (by IRS)
B = undefined if no assessment has been done

A signed tax return is considered a "self-assessment"
where A > 0 and B = 0.


Thus, if A = 0 (no return), then deficiency D = C - B.

B can only have a value if a proper ASSESSMENT
has been done, because the statutory authority
here uses the term "assessed" as it is defined
in all IRS administrative procedures.

Accordingly, D can only have a value if C and B
have a value. If B has no value, then D remains
undefined!


CONCLUSION: Formal ASSESSMENT is always required
for the variable D ("Deficiency") to have any non-zero value
in the absence of a properly executed tax return.


I hope this helps.


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

**end copy/paste**

Greetings,

Anyone with I.R.S issues may want to check out the latest huff and puff from that agency at http://www.creditwrench.blogspot.com. It should be the December 3rd post.

Sincerely,
truth

[weishaupt1776]

That's great, now we develop better methods every year!

[weishaupt1776]

While the info above is certainly diligent research, whay get all caught up in the code when you can SMACK 'EM DOWN w/ court procedure?
This is in The Attorney General's Manual

For Dial Up users, I will provide the section:

• IRS CERTIFICATE OF ASSESSMENT AND PAYMENTS -- FORM 4340
  
  COMPUTER TRANSCRIPT -- FORM 4303
  
  1. IRS maintains a bookkeeping record of each taxpayer.
  
  2. Transcript or Certificate of Assessments and Payments reflects information as to a given taxpayer such as date returns filed, absence of filing, payment made, penalties paid, estimated tax payments, and the like.
  
  3. Transcript can be useful at trial -- examples:
  
  A. Net worth case -- reflects taxes paid, a non-deductible item
  
  B. Tax history -- delinquent returns, penalties paid, audit results, date return filed
  
  C. Returns destroyed -- can still establish tax history
  
  4. Certificate of Assessment used to prove contents of return when fire destroyed file copy and only copy available was penciled retained copy of taxpayer
  
  A. Moore v. United States, 254*F.2d 213, 215 (5th*Cir.), cert. denied, 357*U.S. 926 (1958)
  
  5. Transcript can be certified under statutory procedure, Rule 44 procedure, or Rule 902(1), (4), Fed. R. Evid.; also admissible under Rule 803(8) and Rule 1005, Fed. R. Evid.
  
  6. Admissibility of certified transcript:
  
  A. Fed. R. Evid. 803(8), 1005
  
  B. Vloutis v. United States 219*F.2d 782, 789 (5th*Cir. 1955)
  
  C. Holland v. United States, 209*F.2d 516, 520 (10th*Cir.), aff'd, 348*U.S. 121 (1954)
  
  D. Moore v. United States, 254*F.2d 213, 216 (5th*Cir.), cert. denied, 357*U.S. 926 (1958)
  
  7. Witness needed:
  
  A. Documents does not speak for itself -- explanation needed
  
  B. BUT -- have Certificate of Assessments and Payments certified under Rule 902(1) and have witness explain terms, codes, etc.
  
  8. Contact Service Center well in advance of trial -- takes time to obtain certified documents.
  
  9. Obtain proper witness and arrange for interview.

The Attorney General's Manual admits that a Form 4340 is not a witness

Check United States v. Ruffin, 575 F.2d 346, 357 (2d Cir. 1978) (can't merely have a witness testify (hearsay) as to contents of document -- Rule 803(14)applies to recorded documents) :

• 14) Records of documents affecting an interest in property. The record of a document purporting to establish or affect an interest in property, as proof of the content of the original recorded document and its execution and delivery by each person by whom it purports to have been executed, if the record is a record of a public office and an applicable statute authorizes the recording of documents of that kind in that office.

But look at 8. above & DISTINGUISH:
Witness can testify that copy is a true copy of an official record or recorded document -- But document "testifies" as to contents, not witness Rule 1005

• The contents of an official record, or of a document authorized to be recorded or filed and actually recorded or filed, including data compilations in any form, if otherwise admissible, may be proved by copy, certified as correct in accordance with rule 902 or testified to be correct by a witness who has compared it with the original. If a copy which complies with the foregoing cannot be obtained by the exercise of reasonable diligence, then other evidence of the contents may be given.

So I had to dig all of this up just to prove that alleged IRS assessments are NOTHING MORE THAN UNSWORN HEARSAY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can I Get a Witness up in Heeeya?

[weishaupt1776]

Respondent, however, submitted no evidence tending either to demonstrate that the assessment was incorrect or to show the correct amount of wagering tax liability, if any, on his part.* In the usual situation, one might well argue, as the Government does, that the District Court then could not properly grant judgment for the respondent on either aspect of the suit.* But the present case may well not be the usual situation.* What we have is a "naked" assessment, without any foundation whatsoever if what was seized by the Los Angeles police cannot be used in the formulation of the assessment.* The determination of tax due then may be one "without rational foundation and excessive," and not properly subject to the usual rule with respect to the burden of proof in tax cases.* Helvering v. Taylor, 293 U.S. 507, 514-515 (1935).* See 9 J. Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation § 50.65 (1971).
*
*There appears, indeed, to be some debate among the [428 U.S. 442] Federal Courts of Appeals, in different factual contexts, as to the effect upon the burden of proof in a tax case when there is positive evidence that an assessment is incorrect.* Some courts indicate that the burden of showing the amount of the deficiency then shifts to the Commissioner.* Others hold that the burden of showing the correct amount of the tax remains with the taxpayer.* However that may be, the debate does not extend to the situation where the assessment is shown to be naked and without any foundation.* The courts then appear to apply the rule of the Taylor case.* See United States v. Rexach, 482 F.2d 10, 16-17, n. 3 (CA1), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1039 (1973); Pizzarello v. United States, 408 F.2d 579 (CA2), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 986 (1969); Suarez v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 792, 814-815 (1972).* But cf. Compton v. United States, 334 F.2d 212, 216 (CA4 1964).
*Certainly, proof that an assessment is utterly without foundation is proof that it is arbitrary and erroneous.* For purposes of this case, we need not go so far as to accept the Government's argument that the exclusion of the evidence in issue here is insufficient to require judgment for the respondent or even to shift the burden to the Government.* We are willing to assume that, if the District Court was correct in ruling that the evidence seized by the Los Angeles police may not be used in formulating the assessment (on which both the levy and the counterclaim were based), then the District Court was also correct in granting judgment for Janis in both*aspects of the present suit.* This assumption takes us, then, to the primary issue.** U.S. v Janis, 428 U.S. 433,*442-3
*
The primary issue was the state*police officer obtain a warrant under false*pretenses, thus the evidence was suppressed, and the police complained to the IRS to put pressure and*the penalty on the Janis.* The issue was, does the 4th amendment right of exclusion in this case*extend to federal civil proceedings to collect information to*establish a basis to wagering*tax, penalty and interest.* In other words to convert the naked assessment into an assessment under an established*foundation of fact.**This*is called the "Silver*Platter" doctrine where the feds could*use state officers to violate the amendments then use the information obtained to prosecute in federal court even though the same evidence had been excluded from state court by the abuse of the officer.**

[KaosTheory]

Hey Weis, thats a good angle. I think that this is where the Commercial Affidavit comes in. If you send in an affidavit that says that says (to the best of your knowledge) that you owe nothing, then they have to counter it with an affidavit of their own. Otherwise your affidavit stands as truth in commerce.

If someone signs a 1040 form, then they are in effect signing a commercial affidavit. Problem is the "zero" returns. I know you had probs with this. I'm still thinking that the IRS would have to file a counter affidavit to your "zero" return. Of course, they are above the law though.

I'm thinking back to a post I read about the W-4 form being listed under gift taxes. Does Paul Mitchell address this at all? How can someone be forced to give a gift?