California FTB (franchise theft board) - Page 2

rushpat · #11 03-30-2004, 12:28 PM

The first one was more a demand for a return, whereas this new communication is more a demand for money.

I'm wondering what role their do***ented default in this matter could be?

#12 03-30-2004, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rushpat

&I'm wondering what role their do***ented default in this matter could be?

They had no authority&to assess a tax&without a tax return. Everything&they are doing is without authority.&You have not yet asked them what their authority is.& FTB usually answers my correspondence,&so I can hardly wait for their response to the PA. & 

Have you read the FTB's&Privacy Act Notice?&It doesn't even come close to the&1974 PA or Title 31.&

Check out this link regarding the IRS and the PA:

http://www.guam.net/les/txt2/attach40.txt

&

rushpat · #13 03-30-2004, 02:09 PM

Thanks for the great help there? May I ask, what has been the extent of your correspondence with the FTB?

I was under the impression that they just disregard letters, affidavits, notices, warnings of estoppel, UCC FS filings, etc, and just keep going with their collection activity.

I hope I'm wrong.

#14 03-30-2004, 02:38 PM

I have kept&my correspondence to them to a minimum. Back in August 2003 I sent them a UCC instrument to discharge the debt.&On September 5&I received a letter from Roger Lubiens regarding that instrument. He wrote:

&"we do not correspondence to correspondence objecting to state taxes on constitutional, religious, or UCC arguments." 

I noticed that the amount&on&the instrument I sent them was wrong (by&$2,000) so I sent them another instrument with the correct amount. Lubiens responded to that with a similar letter&EXCEPT that&the word "UCC" was&omitted&in the second letter.

It read like this:

&"we do not correspondence to correspondence objecting to state taxes on constitutional, religious, or moral grounds." 

But, all of the above was regarding 1997-2001 taxes.

Back in December 2003 I&received a Demand for Tax Return for the year 2002.&I&responded to that with the Privacy Act letter when I received their Notice of Proposed&Assessment.

I have sent them&correspondence in the past for which I never received a response, but that correspondence did not&require a&response.

They will ignore affidavits, notices, estopples, etc.. because those things don't need a response.&

I don't know why Lubiens responded to my UCC instrument.

&

&

rushpat · #15 03-30-2004, 04:04 PM

Perhaps the UCC instruments really do work and they are afraid of them, so they go out of their way to attack them.

I've added the Privacy Act portion that you recommended to my 72-hour response, along with the FDCPA portion, to make it a strong request for much info to prove their claim. I'm thinking of adding a section to it that states that I didn't send through their protest channels as that may automatically or inadvertently validate the debt for them and supercede their requirement to cite their authority for this request for info as per the Privacy Act (nods to Jersee for that one).

I can't believe I'm having to start another default procedure on these losers. Man, I'm really regretting moving to California now. At least this time, more evidence will be put into the public record including not one, but two defaults, non-responses, etc.

My only question is: Will this matter? Will they respond? If I've put them on notice of the FDCPA and PA, will they honor it or just keep on steamrolling this one? My last correspondence gained me 6 months, but they dishonored and defaulted and are still coming anyway. I'm thinking that dishonor is nothing new for them.

Thanks a ton, Tora!
(edit)I forgot to mention that the FDCPA portion, which is currently the majority of the response, comes mainly from the Commercial toolbox 3.0, but I noticed that they didn't put in a time limit for responding. I'm thinking that I will so that I can do the 1, 2 3 default on this one too. Thoughts?(/edit)
rushpat

rushpat · #16 03-30-2004, 07:39 PM

Maybe they changed the "UCC arguments" part to "moral objections" because they really do have to obey the UCC. All revenue collection is a commercial activity, right?

I'm surprised no one else has jumped into this conversation so far.

#17 03-30-2004, 08:21 PM

"Maybe they changed the "UCC arguments" part to "moral objections" because they really do have to obey the UCC. All revenue collection is a commercial activity, right?"

The states did adopt the UCC, so yes,&it is their code,&they&do have to abide by it, but, you know how that goes..

I don't want to read too much into why&they&omitted it the second time, but&it&does seem&obvious&they omitted&it&because the&UCC&applied to my case.&

Maybe nobody has chimmed in because nobody has anything to&add?? :-)

&

&

rushpat · #18 03-30-2004, 10:26 PM

One more question, what made you choose that particular mailing address to send to? Was that the one that you received from?

Many people send directly to Gerald Goldberg. Last time, I did that at mail stop F-200. This current correspondence from them show a different PO box and slightly different zip in Sacramento.

#19 03-30-2004, 10:49 PM

<TT>The above FTB&address&was on the Notice of Proposed Assessment.& The P.O. Box looks familiar to me, but the INC BUSINESS SECTION J40 is new to me. I&respond to them using the address that's on top of their last correspondence to me.&</TT>
<TT></TT>&
<TT></TT>I& never send anything to Goldberg.&Do you really think he reads tax protester letters?His staff&screens all his mail. 
I have no idea what he does with&tax protest letters.&

&
<TT></TT>&

rushpat · #20 03-31-2004, 07:24 AM

His was the only name I have. I figure it's got as good a chance of making to him as to any lowly uninformed figured in any other part fo their organization.