California FTB (franchise theft board)

[rushpat]

Tora, they probably got together and decided that you were a smaller threat to them than the IRS. Plain and simple. They fear them more. Time to make them fear you now.

nralien, Yes, I definitely would have sent the Williamson case, or at least a summary of it. The one I found on the famguardian.org site under their IRSCD/cases directory was just a 3 page doc file with the relevant points. You might want to include that in the action you are about to take with them.

Nah, the money is gone forever.& They didn't get much - about $2,000.The memory exists and that's about all...I have&no regrets, or anger, still lurking around.&


Larken Rose keeps talking about how the fraud is going to end very soon (a few&months, not years)&I think he is in a dream world.. but, I could be wrong.If he thinks the fraud is going to end because of&his mini cd, he'd better think again.&..& &


&

Tora, they probably got together and decided that you were a smaller threat to them than the IRS. Plain and simple. They fear them more. Time to make them fear you now.


<FONT size=3>Yeah, but I'm&not sold on the idea&they were&afraid of IRS. I think they knew they could have gotten rid of them, but they just didn't.I had to work for a one of the other attorneys one week and recall having to type a letter he dictated&to the IRS.&He was writing to set up payments arrangements!</FONT>

[nralien]

rushpat

I only cited the case in my letter.& I did not send them a copy of the Williamson decision but I will definiely send them a copy in any future correspondense.

Did you happen to take a look at that site and see if there is anything we can use?

nralien

[rushpat]

Whoa! I had to put this one out there. Thanks to nralien.

He included info from the order sent to his bank telling them to withhold. This was good, as I was using this to prepare my employer and bank if they sent something to me in Georgia:

This was from nralien:

PERSONAL INCOME TAX page one is:
THIS ORDER TO WITHHOLD has been issued...
THIS ORDER IS DIRECTED against your depositor..

Apparently, their ORDER is supposed to sound like a COURT ORDER. I'm sure the fear of the FTB could make some jump to this conclusion.

YOU ARE "REQUIRED" TO WITHHOLD

... {I redacted this part for brevity's sake}...

"emphasis added"

IN COMPLYING WITH THIS ORDER, WE "REQUEST" THAT YOU: "emphasis added"
1. NOTIFY the taxpayer...
2. RETAIN any funds withheld for 10 business days from the date you
received
this Order. At the end of this holding period, remit any funds
withheld

...{redacted again}...

So, is it a request or a requirement? nralien picked that one up. I'm wondering why the 10 day waiting period? Isn't that like traffic tickets that tell you to wait 10 days then pay? Something Rice McLeod said about 10 days (3 days=contract, 7=default, 10=summary judgment).

Now here's the kicker, when they are throwing ou their so-called authority, here's what they are quoting... see if you can spot the outrageous things they are claiming:

18670. NOTICE TO WITHHOLD, HOW SERVED
... and what follows is the text of withholding for tax purposes....

Several times in this section, it mentions 'the state', which we are to conclude means California? Wouldn't seem to hold water anywhere else, eh?

Okay, here's where it goes haywire....

19672. FAILURE TO WITHHOLD, LIABILITY
Any employer or person failing to withhold the amount due from any
taxpayer
and to transmit the same to the Franchise Tax Board after service of a
notice pursuant to Section 18670 is liable for such amounts.

19674. WITHHOLD AGENT, MUST PAY WITHOUT RESORTING TO ACTION
(a) Any employer or person required to withhold and transmit any amount
pursuant to this article shall comply with the requirement without
resort to
any legal or equitable action in a court of law or equity. [talk about
loss
of due process...]

Okay, so they demand you withhold and command you not to bring about legal action. WTF???

.... redacted due to error....

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/ca...odesection=rtc

... redacted due to error...

=-=--==-=-=-


Okay, I take some of this back. The numbers are messed up. They are 18672 and 18674... Originally, I thought they'd just made up those sections, since those numbers didn't exist. They do exist, but wrong numbers.

Still, how can you say " You will comply and will not bring legal action"?

I couldn't find 19674 in&the Revenue Code&either.


http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html


You just have to remember&that their codes have nothing to do with you, but have everything to do with corporations, and the strawman.&That's why most banks& refuse your&UCC-1 filing. &

[rushpat]

Thanks Tora, we actually caught the error just before you posted and corrected it. The Yick Wo case also says that a sovereign isn't subject to CODES. The problem is convincing everyone else around you.

However, that 187xx section talks about those required to withhold and keeps talking about 'the state', which I can only infer to mean California, so it is good that I looked there as that gives me more ammo.

[rushpat]

Originally Posted by Tora

I received a copy ofÂ* a "Withholding Order For Taxes" today from one of the temporary help agencies I worked for last year.Â*

Hey Tora, I was looking in the California section on withholding order for taxes and it mentions the following:

(b) "State tax liability" means an amount for which the state has
a state tax lien as defined in Section 7162 of the Government Code
excluding a state tax lien created pursuant to the Fish and Game
Code.


I can't find Section 7162 defined online, just references. Can you find this one? We need to know what a State tax lien is defined as...

Thanks!



-0-00-0-0--0


Ah wait, I found it:

7162. "State tax lien" means a lien created pursuant to Section
8048 of the Fish and Game Code, Section 3423 or 3772 of the Public
Resources Code, Section 6757, 7872, 8996, 13610, 16063, 16810, 19221,
30322, 32363, or 38532 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, or Section
1703 of the Unemployment Insurance Code.
7163. "Tax" means a liability for which a state tax lien has been
created.
7164. "Taxpayer" means the person liable for the tax.


7164 sounds redundant, eh? Where have we heard this before?

Now, we have to look up all those ways under the revenue section to get a lien going....

Section 19221 is&for how&state tax liens are created, but that&section doesn't say "who" is liable for the tax.&Only individuals and persons are liable.& Are you an individual or person?&

[rushpat]

Here it is:

19221. (a) If any taxpayer or person fails to pay any liability
imposed under Part 10 (commencing with Section 17001) or Part 11
(commencing with Section 23001) at the time that it becomes due and
payable, the amount thereof, (including any interest, additional
amount, addition to tax, or penalty, together with any costs that may
accrue in addition thereto) shall thereupon be a perfected and
enforceable state tax lien. This lien is subject to Chapter 14
(commencing with Section 7150) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the
Government Code.
(b) For the purpose of this section, amounts are "due and payable"
on the following dates:
(1) For amounts of any liability disclosed on a return filed on or
before the date payment is due (with regard to any extension of time
to pay), the date the amount is established on the records of the
Franchise Tax Board, except that in no case will it be prior to the
day after the payment due date;
(2) For amounts of any liability disclosed on a return filed after
the date payment is due (with regard to any extension of time to
pay), the date the amount is established on the records of the
Franchise Tax Board;
(3) For amounts of any liability determined under Section 19081 or
19082 (pertaining to jeopardy assessments), the date the notice of
the Franchise Tax Board's finding is mailed or issued;
(4) For all other amounts of liability, the date the assessment is
final.
(c) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), during any period that
Section 362 of Title 11 of the United States Code applies, any tax
lien that would otherwise attach to property by reason of subdivision
(a) shall not take effect, unless the tax is a debt of the debtor
that will not be discharged in the bankruptcy proceeding and the
property or its proceeds are transferred out of the bankruptcy estate
to, or otherwise revested in, the debtor.

Okay, so it is for TAXPAYERS and PERSONS and there must be an established LIABILITY.

Well, using the FDCPA, and the request for VERIFICATION of the debt, it can be shown that there is no LIABILITY if they can't VERIFY. Also, from my previous correspondence, their refusal to meet the conditions show that they couldn't or wouldn't prove a liability or that I was taxpayer.
And I think we all know that the definition of person, as used in the IRS codes (which is heavily used by the FTB), means a corporation.

FRAUD, FRAUD, FRAUD!!!!!