IRS must respond - Page 2

RICKY · #11 03-08-2004, 04:26 PM

JAMES,

MANY THANKS FOR THE IR MANUAL SITE AND THE QUOTES RE: IRS MUST RESPOND.&

LUCY (FICTIOUS NAME), A CLOSE FRIEND OF MINE, JUST RECEIVED A FORM LETTER 3175 (SC) (REV.2-1999) FROM DENNIS L. PARIZEK, OPERATIONS MANAGER, EXAM SC SUPPORT AFTER SENDING A LETTER VERY SIMILER TO THE ONE ABOVE SENT IN BYJMUNSON.

FIRST, IT DID NOT COME BY REGISTERED/CERTIFIED MAIL.&

SECONDLY, THEY DID NOT SPELL HER NAME CORRECTLY - AT ALL.&

THIRDLY, IT STARTS, "THIS IS IN REPLY TO YOUR RECENT CORRESPONDENCE". &SHE IS NOT SURE WHICH "CORRESPONDENCE" IS IN REFERENCE HERE SINCE SHE HAS A COUPLE LETTERS INTO THEM.

FOURTHLY, THEY STATE, "FEDERAL COURTS HAVE CONSISTENTLY RULED AGAINST THE ARGUMENT YOU HAVE MADE.& THEREFORE, WE WILL NOT RESPOND TO FUTURE CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING THESE ISSUES."

LUCY WILL BE SENDING A REFUSAL FOR CAUSE WITHOUT DISHONOR RIGHT AWAY.& I AM THINKING SHE SHOULD QUOTE SOME OF THE REFERENCES YOU HAVE PROVIDED AND WILL TALK WITH HER ABOUT IT AS SOON AS I CAN.

RICKY

James · #12 03-08-2004, 11:19 PM

RICKY<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o

></o

>
Your welcome my friend.<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
>>LUCY WILL BE SENDING A REFUSAL FOR CAUSE WITHOUT DISHONOR RIGHT AWAY.<<
If one is of the mindset “he/she who writes last wins” it would be the thing to do.<o

></o

>
Without certification or registration there is no evidence to prove she received it, is there? <o

></o

>
&
>>THEY DID NOT SPELL HER NAME CORRECTLY - AT ALL.<<&<o

></o

>
False in one (particular), false in all.[maxim]<o

></o

>
Why does she feel compelled to respond if letter was not addressed to her?

<o

></o

>
No one is bound to arm his adversary.[maxim]<o

></o

>
It is a fault to meddle with what does not belong to or does not concern you.[maxim]<o

></o

>
“An individual may be under no obligation to do a particular thing, and his failure to act creates no liability; but if he voluntarily attempts to act and do a particular thing, he comes under an implied obligation in respect to the manner in which he does it.” Guardian T & D Co. vs. Fisher, 26 S.Ct. 186 at 188 (1906)<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
>>I AM THINKING SHE SHOULD QUOTE SOME OF THE REFERENCES YOU HAVE PROVIDED AND WILL TALK WITH HER ABOUT IT AS SOON AS I CAN.<<
I don’t know what “LUCY” sent. If, as you say, it is “VERY SIMILER TO THE ONE ABOVE SENT IN BYJMUNSON” then I’m not familiar with that process. Better yet, I have no faith in the practice of filling a statement every year. If I may barrow part of a statement made by “JOHN V. PARKER, Chief Judge:” It provides her with “the same degree of protection from federal income taxation as did the Ghost Dance of the Sioux warrior from the repeating rifles of the federal Calvary - ZERO."<o

></o

>
She could quote some of the references, though I believe it would not make a difference to merchant-Dennis Parizek. The law compels no one to do anything, which is useless or impossible.

<o

></o

>

Jerseee · #13 03-09-2004, 07:35 AM

jon,

A very well thought out piece of correspondence--if you are arguing.& with that said, have they verified anything yet?&

#14 03-09-2004, 09:44 AM

I am Lucy, that Ricky was talking about on the post 3/8/04. I have the following questions to Jerseee & James:

1.& How would one get IRS to verify the debt? Just write and ask for them to tell me?

2. The letter states that federal courts have consistently ruled against the arguments I have made and&then stated they "will not&respond to future correspondence concerning these issues", therefore, do I wait for their next move? A reminder that the letter was sent to me with the my&first & last names spelled incorrectly and the letter was not sent by registered mail.

This is&a great site and I appreciate the help. I will be more active and take my own actions from this point forward.&

Linda aka: Lucy

&

Jerseee · #15 03-09-2004, 11:07 AM

Linda,

When asking to have a debt verified does not imply any argument.& that is why they ask for you to argue somehow--no matter what agency or organization it is.& you simply want certified verification of the alleged debt so that you may either satisfy the claim or address the fraud.& there is no possible way that you can dispute something that you do not know to be valid or not.&

And if for some cosmic zodiac, interplanetary reason that they can verify the debt---you have remedy.

#16 03-09-2004, 02:13 PM

jerseee:

lol - arguing...

that piece was done up prior to my learning more about honor/dishonor, etc.

while i wish(ed) to remain in honor with respect to their NoDs, Ms. Joy has been quite lax in rendering the offered assistance there, so i'm now in dishonor...:(

at any rate, i was hoping that the above piece, which was submitted in the supposedly correct fashion, could suffice as evidence of honor & be used as evidence of their dishonor through failure to address the items contained therein, thereby negating their NoDs.

i, with what little i know, don't think i can get a verification as the NoDs were sent january 21st of this year, and i didn't respond within the FDCPA timeframe - because i have been attempting to work with Ms. Joy to simply settle the "debt."

i'm looking to settle this 'debt' - i'd like to send a bond or BoE, or whatever.& arguing is a losing proposition.&

if i can still request verification, if different than the standard VoD, then do let me know - all i have is the "debt collector" VoD, not a "government" oriented one.

any and all input welcomed.

jon

Ice · #17 03-09-2004, 02:39 PM

Linda,

Did they supply you with proof of their claim that "the courts have consistently ruled against your arguments"?

Ice&

#18 03-09-2004, 03:30 PM

To Ice and Jerseee:

In regards to the IRS providing any evidence that the courts typically rule against the position that I stated in my letter is unequivocally NO they did not. They have also placed a lien against&our house and condo that I own with my husband, which I was not married to at the time of the questioned tax years. I have since found out that the liens have only been filed at the county level and not with the state. I am currently filing UCC1 cross filings&with my husband. Will this protect our property? If not, what else can we do to protect our assets?

I appreciate the support for not responding to the last communication from the IRS since the letter was addressed to the wrong name and it was not sent certified.

I am confused by the postings that I have read today. I sent a letter very similar to Jmunson to the IRS stating that I was revoking my signature on previous 1040 forms as it had been made known to me that&I am&not required by law to pay 1040 taxes or even file the 1040&tax form but provide only a statement. If this is not appropriate how do I approach them? I owe 10 yrs of back taxes according to the IRS. for the years 1990 to 1999. Has any one had any success recently that they could share?

Thanks for the information & support. Linda

&

&

Jerseee · #19 03-09-2004, 03:33 PM

jon,

If they are still after you to agree to the debt, then you are not in dishonor yet.& it is when you refuse or dispute, or&go silent...that you fall into dishonor.

Also, you can ask them at any time to verify the debt.& who cares what they say until they have proof?& Honor and dishonor is the most simple thing to do.& Alot of folks make it difficult by putting their spin on it.

You can simply ask them to verify the debt according to the code.& it is a totally different story when you put them on notice of their words.& A thing void from the beginning, does not become valid due to lapse of time.

Also, you always have remedy.& You never lose that unless you do not use it.

I apologize for the confusion--i thought that letter was recent.& :-)

Ice · #20 03-09-2004, 05:10 PM

Linda,

Tax issues are a pain in the... well, you know.

I remember a guy that checked to see if the lien was filed at the State level... and it wasn't.& He was then able to have the county remove the lien as it should have been filed at State level first.& I remember reading that, but don't know where my copy of the article is.

Maybe someone else still has that article and will be kind enough to upload the same to our download section.

Anyway, that simple process, which the guy sold the details of for about $12.00, might be the first step.

Ice

&