California FTB (franchise theft board)

[rushpat]

They definitely are not a creditor. Therefore, they can only be a 3rd party debt collector.

[rushpat]

Got two in the mail today from the FTB. One was a Final Notice, with lots of threats and some amount which looks lower than the last one.

Then, there is an application for income tax amnesty program, with some details about an installment plan. It says "You may save..." but then there is no number, and this total amount is higher than the other letter. Strange.

Time to return to the Conditional acceptance. I think they are just trying to find a way to get me to agree to something. Most of their stuff has been refused for cause without dishonor in the past 6 months. The last time I did conditional acceptance, they disappeared for nearly 6 months. I have so many more conditions this time, it will take pages and pages to get them all in.

Then, there are the 5 violations of the FDCPA for collecting after being noticed, plus the violations for non-response of the PRA and IPA acts of California, etc. They now owe me more than they claim I owe.

[rushpat]

A very non-responsive "answer" to my PRA (Public Records Act... similar to FOIA, but on the state level) request... at least the first request I made, of 3 now.

When asked for the names and identifications of all parties involved in this account, I was told that they don't give out badge ID's for security reasons. No mention of names. I guess the security they are referring to is "job security", which is threatened if and when people start suing them.

When asked for a copy of the Final Assessment, I got a photocopy of the same "notice of proposed assessment" that I already had. Could this be because there was no final assessment, or because the final one might have identified whoever signed it (if they did at all).

When asked for various documents indicating that I was a (1) "taxpayer", (2) had "taxable income", (3) was involved in a "taxable activity", etc, they didn't even mention documents, they just said that I had a filing requirement. Probably due to the W2. I guess I need to rebut that one in my next letter to them.

They admitted no contract between us, but then said that it wasn't necessary. They admitted they had no documentation that I was running a business or franchise, and that they had no underwriting bond for themselves.

So much for information. What a bunch of cowardly losers.

I am arriving at this discussion long after it has died down, but perhaps the lag can offer fresh perspective. This is all theory on my part mixed in with some personal experience.

1) The laws regarding liens in California appear to be ambiguous because there are two types of liens; normal liens and statutorally perfected liens (levies). If the FTB has levied your wages, it's because state law has allowed them to bypass the court system altogether. As long as they follow their administrative procedure to a T, the legislature has already given then the nod in a way that precludes the state judiciary from waking up and taking notice. Your state "residency" and your employer's state "residency" solve the jurisdiction problem sufficiently to make the statute stick.

Every other pair of parties have to follow the normal lawful means of perfecting liens and levies, namely the court system. [When I practiced tax preparation, I used to point out that the Feds generally went after assets, and the State wages, because each had found expedient means for their respective recourses.]

2) Acting within the FTB bureaucracy is about as pointless as acting within Federal Tax Court, unless you can trip them up with state statutes that applies to public officials, or you can find administrative law specific to the FTB that can make them individually uncomfortable. Have no doubt that the entire process is not only acted under the color of law, but has colored statute backing it up.

3) California can't get away with these monkeyshines when the parties involved are not California natives. The IRS has to get judgements for California parties even while the FTB does not!!! The IRS does not have the secret passage for its levies that the State does!

I have seen once exception to this rule of thumb. When the IRS goes after federally chartered banks for your deposits, the banks aren't willing to risk their charters quibbling. It's too bad Shulz vs. IRS wasn't decided a decade earlier, as I could have turned Wells Fargo over to the SoS for violation of California's criminal breach of fudiciary duties statutes! (Yes, unfortunately I had standing on that issue.)

4) Because California business fictions do not want to risk their privilege of doing business in California, you will almost never see an employer championing the employee's cause on state tax matters. The principals don't want to see their business exiled because of one or a few employees issues.

[rushpat]

Thanks for the input. The bogus Notice of Lien showed up in the Sacramento county records office. It appears on two of the 3 CRA's reports. One doesn't state an amount, the other states an amount of "0". Their last official notice to me in the mail indicated a lien on property in Sacramento county. I'm not even in California and was never in Sacramento. Must be the default when it doesn't come up as California. Their own rules say that they must file the notice within the current, or last known county of residence. Since they didn't file in my county in my current state or the last county I was in during my stay in California, my guess is that they've run this course and are moving on.

My next step is to attempt to get the CRA's to remove this from my credit report by demanding verfication.