IRS Notice(s) of Deficiencies

hello all!


i am writing for some assistance (not advice! ) and collective opinion on how to proceed regarding NoDs from our fav boys.


background:


in the latter years before the tech market crash i was a computer consultant (did MS Access/VB/Office programming & web stuff) and under 1099 w/ contracted company.& they submitted the two years to the IRS who are attempting to collect the alleged taxes (i never paid the alleged taxes as i had&John Rizzo's Millenium 2000 Package, which i later learned was critically flawed)&- with interest and penalties, somewhere around 35k-40k (as per NoDs received in 2/04 via certified mail which my wife signed for).


status:


surviving.& i am assisting my parents in their biz (since the market crash, nigh on 3 years ago)&in exchange for whatever my expenses are, and attempting to get a fledgling hardscaping company going - so there is little to no "money" with which to pay anyone for assistance.& hence i came in to contact with Ms. Victoria Joy of Angel With The Inkwell Ministries - honor/dishonor/BoE, etc., material.& went to a workshop of hers in cleveland last year.& she offered to help, pro bono, and i have made a few donations to her organization since then as i could (but, under ordinary circumstances come not near what her fees really are).& she is now "on tour" - doing workshops hither & thither.& i presume she is too busy to render further assistance, as i haven't had any contact with her in two/three weeks, despite repeated attempts.& from what more i have learned in the last two years, she seems to know her stuff very well indeed.


paperwork status:


filed a ucc1.& don't know if it was done correctly as the people who did it are "no longer" and was a couplea years ago.& have not set up a TDA, or any related type of account (i did read the "Using Your Exemption" essay day b4 yesterday).& i haven't gotten an answer from Ms. Joy if this is necessary - she alluded it was not.& i have received from her a couple of documents to respond to the IRS NoDs to settle and discharge & correct the record(s) reflecting same.& included in those dox is a BoE to settle & discharge.& i have questions on those documents that need answers before i can proceed with them.& the "deadline" to respond to the NoD (beyond the UCC standard) was 2/20/04.


so, i need some help.& please.& should i wait upon Ms. Joy's pleasure, or is anyone here able to render knowledgeable direction?


while i get the concepts, i am not conversant in the reality of putting the stuff together.& i am also tight on time, so have little for research, etc.& my wife, until she sees this stuff work, is unsupportive (oft beligerent/antagonistic)&of my endeavors here (e'en though it has kept us out of bankruptcy!).& thus i also need a little hand-holding.


while i cannot post Ms. Joy's dox, i can post what i've written & will be happy to provide them.


i wished to remain in honor on these issues, but Ms. Joy's schedule (i presume) have left me high and dry on that.


i await your considered opinions.


thanks!


jon

[rushpat]

I'm not sure what others think of Rice McLeod's info, but you might want to check out the audio links here and the Q&A session on bonds:

http://www.worldnewsstand.net/law/bond.htm

thanks rushpat !


i have indeed listened to some of rice mcleod's stuff - it goes with the essay posted in the links under "Using Your Exemption."


if anyone has any documented success w/o the IRS complaining, i'll be happy to entertain this route (i.e., sending in a bond vs. the BoE).


jon

[Ice]

Not long ago I received an email with a story about a guy that simply requested the IRS to provide "verification" under FDCPA.& And the IRS went away.& I'll check to see if I still have it.


Ice

[rushpat]

Ice, I ordered something from truthstore.com called Commercial Toolbox 3.0, which was a way to use the FDCPA procedure against the IRS to get rid of the NoD.

whatever information anyone else i'll entertain after examining it thoroughly of course.


many thanks!


&


jon

jersee/ice/all:


what code can i cite to request the IRS verfiy&the alleged debt that lead to these NoDs?


i am a little confused on this issue.


does the FDCPA even apply to the IRS?& my knee-jerk guess is no, but i don't know.


if YES, is the IRS an original creditor?


any other input?


jon

Mornin'...


Have a look-see:<FONT size=2>


TITLE 28 &gt; PART VI &gt; CHAPTER 176 &gt; SUBCHAPTER A


Sec. 3002. - Definitions
(3) ''Debt'' means -
(a) an amount that is owing to the United States on account of a direct loan, or loan insured or guaranteed, by the United States; or
(b) an amount that is owing to the United States on account of a fee, duty, lease, rent, service, sale of real or personal property, overpayment, fine, assessment, penalty, restitution, damages, interest, tax, bail bond forfeiture, reimbursement, recovery of a cost incurred by the United States, or other source of indebtedness to the United States, but that is not owing under the terms of a contract originally entered into by only persons other than the United States;


Now, unless and until they can and do prove otherwise, I'm sticking with the fact that their alleged assessments, including subsequent demands for alleged "debts" are indeed, and in fact, "debts" under the province and procedures required for ALL debts.


So, they gotta adhere to the "Trinity of Debts:"


1) Prove the alleged debt.
2) Prove authority to collect the alleged debt.
3) Verify the alleged debt.


Hope&this helps.


edit: And run with this (copied it out of one of my responses to agents here in VA, but the principal is the same, fed and State)--I.E., if you don't "volunteer" to pay, their left by trying to collect by "distraint," right?
<UL>
<LI>Distraint; n : the seizure and holding of property as security for payment of a debt or satisfaction of a claim [syn: distress]
</LI>[/list]<UL>
<LI>Bouvier Law Dictionary:</LI>[/list]<DIR>


"DISTRESS, remedies. …It is to be observed also, that <U>there is an essential difference between distresses at common law and distresses prescribed by statute</U>. The former are taken nomine penae, (q. v.) as a means of compelling payment; the latter are similar to executions, and are taken as satisfaction for a duty. </DIR>


"NOMINE POENAE,contracts.
<DIR>


"DUTY, natural law. A human action which is, exactly conformable to the laws which require us to obey them.


2<U>. It differs from a legal obligation</U>, because <U>a duty cannot always be enforced by the law</U>;


"COMMON LAW. That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. See Law, common.


LAW, COMMON. The common law is that which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. It <U>has never received the sanction of the legislature, by an express act, which is the criterion by which it is distinguished from the statute law.</U>


"STATUTE. <U>The written will of the legislature</U>, solemnly expressed according to the forms prescribed in the constitution; an act of the legislature." </DIR>


It is therefore clear that the "distraint" by which the Department has allegedly made these alleged assessments and subsequently alleging these debts can be only one of two things:


i) The "distresses" of "common law." This would be a "contract." Or,


ii) The "distresses" of "statute." This would be a "duty." A "duty," however, differs from a "legal obligation."


What "contract" of common law did we enter into regarding this alleged tax debt?


What "statute" requires a "duty" regarding this alleged debt when "duty" is not a legal obligation?


Also, and I'm still looking through my notes, there's a section in one of the CFR's that states, plainly, that violation of "internal revenue" laws/codes are "commericial crimes." THAT makes it "commerce" and THAT makes it under the Fair Debt stuff.&


brb--gonna look some more...


Okay. Can't find it. Somebody else will know it.


edit...again:


here it is:


[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 27, Volume 1]
[Revised as of April 1, 2003]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
& TITLE 27--ALCOHOL, TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND FIREARMS

CHAPTER I--ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO TAX AND TRADE BUREAU, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

PART 72--DISPOSITION OF SEIZED PERSONAL PROPERTY--Table of Contents

Subpart B--Definitions

Sec. 72.11& Meaning of terms.


ATF Officer. An officer or employee of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) duly authorized to perform any function relating to the administration or enforcement of this part.



Commercial crimes. Any of the following types of crimes (Federal or State): Offenses against the revenue laws;


Me again: Maybe we should start asking why the "Commissioner" contacts us (through his minions those dastardly agents), and NOT the ATF?


I'm really gone now.


Randy&</FONT>

just to keep this topic updated...


w/ jerseee's educated opinions i have been able to cobble together a letter to respond correctly to the IRS fishing expedition (well, ok, so it's a little more than that), and will be sending that out tomorrow pending one final review.


i'll keep ya'll posted on the response i get.


bets on "the federal courts have consistently ruled..." crappola?


jon

also, thanks to everyone for their input...


jon